Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 22



Category:Television shows set in the fictional populated places in the United States

 * 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 category; merge its contents to Category:Television shows set in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting television shows set in the fictional populated places in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't see the point of this category. No inclusion criteria, no description of purpose Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Category:Television shows set in the United States then.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete is unnecessary. It is a split from Category:Television shows set in the United States which are generally fiction already. — CobraWiki ( jabber 01:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only 67 articles listed at Category:Television shows set in the United States. It can handle the additional 27 listed here. —  Wylie pedia  04:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * don't you mean "merge", then, rather than "delete"? They are different outcomes. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories cannot be "merged". The articles' categories listed in them must be changed (back). —  Wylie pedia  23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what happens when we tell a bot to merge categories: the members are moved from one category to another, by editing the articles (or sub-cat pages). In contrast, when we program a bot to delete a category, the member articles are edited remove the category altogether, so the only way to trace and put them somewhere else would be by reviewing the bot's contribs (usually Special:Contributions/Cydebot). – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-WP:DEFINING. The fact that their settings aren't real places is not a substantive point of commonality between shows that are set in different fictional places. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge to Category:Television shows set in the United States, only if it's really sure that the fictional place is in the non-fictional US. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: for cross-reference, this seems similar to the category deleted following last week's discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_14. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I gave at CFD for the Films category pointed out by Fayenatic London above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Television shows set in the United States. Being a fictional place isn't defining for a tv show, but if they are in the US, they can be merged. kennethaw88 • talk 18:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Television shows set in the United States.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (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.

Latin and Particular churches

 * 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 and reinstate former categorisation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting and put the contents back in the categories where they were before Category:Latin Church
 * Propose deleting and put the contents back in the categories where they were before Category:Particular churches
 * Nominator's rationale Is effectively a duplicate of Category:Catholicism and of Category:Roman Catholic Church in the former case and of Category:Eastern Catholic churches in the later case. There is no nuance of the articles that is not adequately covered by existing articles and their parent categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: deletion would orphan the article Latin Church, which was formerly within Category:Western Christianity, Category:Catholic terms and Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation; likewise, the other contents have been moved by  out of the parent categories of the other new one.  Perhaps "delete and put the contents back in the categories where they were before"?  – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Duplicate categorisation may be motivated, but in this case I have a hard time seeing why. Categorisation in the parent category should be enough. Although these two categories in question may use two terms rarely in use in mainstream language, I also have hard time see that disqualify their existance on Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge back -- We cannot delete, because both main articles will be orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge back per WP:SMALLCAT, Category:Latin Church consists of one article, Category:Particular churches consists of two relevant articles that fit well in Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation and one big child category, the Eastern Catholic churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2016 (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:Religion and law by country

 * 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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Religion and law by country to Category:Law about religion by country
 * Propose merging Category:Religion and law in France to Category:Law about religion in France
 * Propose renaming Category:Religion and law in the United States to Category:Law about religion in the United States
 * Propose renaming Category:United States legislation concerning religion to Category:United States legislation about religion
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_24, at which "Religious law" categories by country were renamed to "Law about religion". Now, we no longer need this extra layer for France, and the US categories can be renamed to match the others. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: "merger" here requires copying the head categories onto the target. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- It makes sense. The target is a better description.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2016 (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:Television series by DreamWorks 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by DreamWorks Television to Category:Television series by Amblin Entertainment
 * Nominator's rationale: DreamWorks along with Amblin Entertainment, are now part of Amblin Partners, DreamWorks TV shows are now marketed under the Amblin Television brand. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK: We have to do this since Amblin Partners was formed last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDIS (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — MSDIS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MSDIS is evidently a WP:SOCK of the anon editor who made this and similar nominations at April 13, April 14 and April 21. Anon editor, please just log in and edit as MSDIS. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – CfDs by the same nominator with similar rationales are underway at the following locations, and may be relevant to this one:
 * Ibadibam (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Categorize television works by the name of the company that created them. Companies merge, split, rename themselves and lots of other things, but the company that actually created the work will remain intact. This is different than universities, where historically the institution is generally more stable than the name. In this case, the actual name of the creator institution matters and should be preserved in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given by Johnpacklambert. Trivialist (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ibadibam (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Categorize television works by the name of the company that created them. Companies merge, split, rename themselves and lots of other things, but the company that actually created the work will remain intact. This is different than universities, where historically the institution is generally more stable than the name. In this case, the actual name of the creator institution matters and should be preserved in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given by Johnpacklambert. Trivialist (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given by Johnpacklambert. Trivialist (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (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:People's Republic of China painters from Beijing

 * 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) 03:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People's Republic of China painters from Beijing to Category:Painters from Beijing
 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, see discussion below. There is no Category:People's Republic of China people. Timmyshin (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also nominate the following:
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Anhui to Category:Painters from Anhui
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Chongqing to Category:Painters from Chongqing
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Fujian‎ to Category:Painters from Fujian
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Gansu to Category:Painters from Gansu
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Guangdong to Category:Painters from Guangdong
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Guangxi‎ to Category:Painters from Guangxi
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Guizhou‎ to Category:Painters from Guizhou
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Hebei to Category:Painters from Hebei
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Heilongjiang to Category:Painters from Heilongjiang
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Henan to Category:Painters from Henan
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Hubei‎ to Category:Painters from Hubei
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Hunan to Category:Painters from Hunan
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Jiangsu‎ to Category:Painters from Jiangsu
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Jiangxi to Category:Painters from Jiangxi
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Jilin to Category:Painters from Jilin
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Liaoning‎ to Category:Painters from Liaoning
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Shaanxi to Category:Painters from Shaanxi
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Shandong to Category:Painters from Shandong
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Shanghai to Category:Painters from Shanghai
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Sichuan to Category:Painters from Sichuan
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Yunnan‎ to Category:Painters from Yunnan
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters from Zhejiang‎ to Category:Painters from Zhejiang
 * Support All Even as someone with reservations about China=PRC, the articles for each city is just the city name so the corresponding articles don't need a country and I don't think there are so many non-Chinese painters to require a subcategory by nationality. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support all (1) Non-Chinese painters from these provinces (etc.) will be rare; (2) No need to disambiguate, as there are no other places with the name; (3) We decided some time ago that the (Nationalist) Republic of China would be known in WP as Taiwan, so that there is no need to split out PRC; and (4) There is no particular need to distinguish the period of PRC (since c.1948) from earlier periods of Chinese hiostry.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - "People's Republic of China" here denotes the period (as opposed to ROC, Qing dynasty, Ming dynasty, etc.), not nationality. Some of the parent categories are already quite large and need to be organized by period, others will become bigger as more articles are created. I'm studying Chinese art history and can easily identify a few hundred missing articles of notable artists that can potentially be added to these categories. Also, the nominator should have had the courtesy to notify the creator . -Zanhe (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Before the creation of "a few hundred missing articles", the majority of these parental categories are very small (<10 articles) and further categorizing them is considered WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Besides, in which other country are painters (or any other profession) categorized by both administrative area and period? Timmyshin (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which other country is as big as China and has an art history as long? Many Chinese provinces are as big or bigger than major European countries and have art histories at least as long. Chinese painters have been recorded by name since the 3rd century (Cao Buxing, Wei Xie (no article yet), Gu Kaizhi, etc.). Not every period needs to be divided by province (for obvious reasons less art has survived from earlier periods), but more recent ones, especially PRC and Qing, certainly do. -Zanhe (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This has nothing to do with China's size or history but everything to do with policy. WP:OCLOCATION: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Also see WP:NARROWCAT. Timmyshin (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chinese provincial boundaries are far more relevant than American state boundaries, which all have their own artist categories, because of more entrenched regionalism in China. Chinese art is commonly divided by regional lines, see Shanghai School, Wu School, Lingnan School, Anhui School, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to remove Category:Chinese painters by province, but categorizing by both province and period is WP:NARROWCAT. Timmyshin (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Zanhe's argument, which was the rationale for creating them in the first place. (I.e., PRC denotes period, as opposed to ROC or a prior dynasty.)  --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I might have opposed the proposal if there would have been enough content for a more complete split by period in each city, but since that is not the case it doesn't make sense to have a split for just one single period. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion here. The categories are not divided by cities, but by provinces (Beijing, Chongqing, and Shanghai are exceptional because they are province-level municipalities). -Zanhe (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not really change things. There is not enough content for a more complete split by period in each province. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The provinces in most cases have remained with relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes. When we have a case of Hebei with 5 articles between the two categories the split does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Relevant US categories might be Category:Painters from colonial Massachusetts and Category:Painters from Confederate Alabama. Maybe even Category:Painters from Utah Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnpacklambert, this might be true except for the fact that the populations in these Chinese provinces are much larger. Most of them can be fairly large-sized nations by themselves, by population.  Also, as to your earlier comment, "relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes" doesn't really argue for or against the concept, actually, but isn't quite true anyway (they have had the same boundaries only since the Yuan Dynasty (arguably Song)).  --Nlu (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the size of population that matters, but the amount of articles per period in every of these provinces. As said before, there isn't enough content for a split by the intersection of province and period, while of course it's perfectly fine to categorize by province and by period separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2016 (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:People's Republic of China people by occupation

 * 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 (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people's republic of china people by occupation


 * Nominator's rationale: In my opinion, unnecessary categorization as there is already Category:Chinese people by occupation. On en.wp, China = People's Republic of China, it's the primary topic. We only have Category:Chinese people but no Category:People's Republic of China people. Category:Chinese people by occupation has over 80 subcategories, but Category:People's Republic of China people by occupation only has 5. For consistency, it's much easier to delete the 5 (and their subcategories), than to create hundreds of subcategories for no real benefits to our readers. Timmyshin (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also nominate the following categories for deletion (their contents upmerged with Category:Chinese ...): Object to deletion. I also object to merger in some cases. I checked calligraphers and painters, and found them to have subcategories by period. Defining some of these as PRC is distinguishing them as belonging to a recent period, as opposed to the Han or Ming period. I agree to the principle of moving these to "Chinese" categories, but in some cases something in the category name as to their period needs to be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:People's Republic of China calligraphers‎
 * Category:People's Republic of China musicians
 * Category:People's Republic of China composers
 * Category:People's Republic of China writers
 * Category:People's Republic of China painters
 * Category:People's Republic of China landscape painters
 * Category:People's Republic of China essayists
 * Category:People's Republic of China historians‎
 * Category:People's Republic of China journalists‎
 * Category:People's Republic of China poets
 * Category:People's Republic of China science writers‎
 * Category:People's Republic of China translators
 * I agree there is a need to distinguish PRC people from Han/Ming people, but I think we disagree on how to achieve that. If we retain these categories, for consistency we also have to create Category:People's Republic of China scientists, Category:People's Republic of China educators, Category:People's Republic of China engineers, Category:People's Republic of China geographers... around 80 categories and that's a load of work but of no real benefits to our readers. In my opinion, the easier way is to put all PRC people in the baseline categories of Category:Chinese..., while historical people are retained at Category:Tang dynasty... and Category:Qing dynasty.... Now Tang dynasty and Qing dynasty people are not all Chinese people, since Tang occupied present-day Vietnam and Qing occupied present-day Mongolia, and I think it's helpful to think of them as independent categories rather than subcategories of Category:Chinese.... Timmyshin (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. That would be akin to removing Category:Victorian writers from Category:British writers by period because Britain ruled Ireland at the time. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But Category:British Empire writers, if it exists, would be excluded, no? And we don't have Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland writers or Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland writers either. Timmyshin (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsensical examples. British history is very different from China's. The independence of Ireland for Britain is by no means comparable to the all-encompassing upheavals that typified dynastic changes in China, which is why almost all books about the history of Chinese literature or art are divided by dynastic periods. -Zanhe (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. You are the first one to bring up Great Britain in a totally irrelevant analogy. Timmyshin (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My original analogy is relevant (China's rule of Vietnam vs. Britain's rule of Ireland), but you distorted it by equating Britain's loss of Ireland with China's dynastic changes, which is nonsensical. -Zanhe (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is nonsensical. Victorian era is but the reign of one monarch, how can this compare with a dynasty? Timmyshin (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I brought up the Victorian era for the very narrow sense that Britain ruled Ireland at the time, in the same way that the Tang dynasty ruled Vietnam, which you said should be excluded from China for that reason. Then you distorted the analogy in all kinds of ridiculous ways to muddle the water. I really don't see any point reasoning with you any further. -Zanhe (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. But just so that you are clear, the point I was trying to make is that I'm not aware of any other country that uses the country's full/formal name to subcategorize a profession by period. No Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland painters, no Category:Republic of India painters, no Category:Socialist Republic of Vietnam painters, no Category:Lao People's Democratic Republic painters. Per your logic, all of these should exist—but they don't. Timmyshin (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all - "People's Republic of China" is not a one-dimensional concept. It's considered equal to "China" only in the spatial sense, but temporally, it represents only the most recent period of China's long history. In these categories, "People's Republic of China" clearly denotes the period, not the space. -Zanhe (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are already Category:Chinese painters by century and Category:Chinese writers by century for temporal purposes. Similar subcategories can be created. Timmyshin (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all - per Zanhe. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also a further comment; analogy to American states is not a bad analogy, but a major difference is that there is a big population disparity. --Nlu (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (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.