Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 23



Category:Enneatypes

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Enneatypes to Category:Enneagram
 * Nominator's rationale: Only two members, neither of which deal with specific “enneatypes”. Fails WP: SMALLCAT. The Category:Pseudoscience label may also be appropriate for the larger category. 108.210.216.182 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Related enough and simplification. — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:54, 28 December 2017 (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:Discworld cities and towns

 * 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. No need to merge since the one article is alreay in Category:Discworld locations. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting discworld cities and towns


 * Nominator's rationale: Wrong name (should be Category:Discworld populated places), and has one member, potentially failing WP:SMALLCAT. 108.210.216.182 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Discworld since there is no reason to have a one entry category. I really only think there is one other place that would make it in Category:Discworld populated places, and even that I doubt would merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2017 (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:Juliette Benzoni

 * 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) 22:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting juliette benzoni


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, "eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." This is not the case here and the 3 photos categorized here are all included in the main article anyway. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as creator. What if I were to move the photos into a subcat Category:Photos of Juliette Benzoni?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is a scheme of "Images of Foo" categories, so the appropriate categorization would be Category:Images of Juliette Benzoni with parent categories Category:Images of French people and Category:Images of writers. An eponymous category is still a stretch at this time according to the guidelines. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So all the current cats would be pushed down to the article & photos?  — Jeff G. ツ 13:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I already put the categories back into the main article because that's not how you categorize eponymous categories. The images would only be categorized in Category:Images of Juliette Benzoni. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 05:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have created Category:Images of Juliette Benzoni, and moved the images into it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 27 December 2017 (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:Rajput clans of Punjab

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)


 * Propose merging Category:Rajput clans of Punjab to Category:Punjabi Rajputs
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure which direction would be best for this merge but the two categories are essentially dealing with the same thing. Sitush (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Category:Rajput clans of Punjab are clans, Category:Punjabi Rajputs are people. Quite different. Oculi (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But we do not categorise people by caste, so your argument fails on first principles. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A clan is not a person. A person is not a clan. My argument succeeds on first, 2nd, 3rd and subsequent principles. If Category:Punjabi Rajputs (a people category) categorises people by caste, then it should be deleted, not merged. But then Category:Punjabi people seems to have several 'by caste' categories. Oculi (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You miss my point, I think. One or other of the categories needs to go but that requires merging the content of which ever one goes in so far as the articles within it are not actually biographies. I don't know which would be the preferred cat title. If Category:Punjabi people seems wrong to you then propose something. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point of User:Oculi. While you write "in so far as the articles are not actually biographies" -> but the point is that Category:Punjabi Rajputs only contains biographies. So I'm assuming that both of you should be happy keeping Category:Rajput clans of Punjab and deleting Category:Punjabi Rajputs. I'll tag Category:Punjabi Rajputs for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Oculi recategorised some articles around the time they first commented here, which confuses the issue. It is well known that I really dislike this particular venue, its regulars and indeed pretty much the entire categorisation system, so forgive me if I bow out. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem stems from Category:Rajputs "This category is meant for topics relating to Rajputs; please do not categorize people here." I would be happy keeping Category:Rajput clans of Punjab and deleting Category:Punjabi Rajputs. Oculi (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (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:21st-century social history

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting 21st-century social history


 * Propose deleting Category:21st-century social history by country tagged December 31st
 * Propose deleting Category:21st-century social history of the United States tagged December 31st
 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Social history is currently just subcategorized by topic and by country. While there may not be an objection against subcategorizing social history by century, it goes too quick to start intersection categories by century and country right away. Also it is very strange to see that an editor starts building a completely new tree and then leaves it alone after having done less than 0.1% of the required work. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Second item not tagged Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for observing, I've corrected this now. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The one item in the second item is about all sorts of history, some perhaps social, but most not. We have hitherto discouraged 20th/21st century splits.  There is now some place for them, but we should not go overboard on this.  The one US subcat is well populated and worth having.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2017 (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:Psychedelics and religion

 * 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 Category:Psychedelics and religion merge Category:Ayahuasca and religion to Category:Psychedelics and religion and Category:Ayahuasca -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Psychedelics and religion to Category:Psychedelia and Category:Religion and drugs (the latter has been nominated for rename to Category:Drugs and religion)
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: We also have the larger Category:Ayahuasca and religion, maybe some merger of the two if folks agree that ayahuasca qualifies as a psychedelic? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you propose merging Category:Ayahuasca and religion into Category:Psychedelics and religion? That sounds like a reasonable alternative, though it should then be a dual merge, also to Category:Ayahuasca. I'll tag Category:Ayahuasca and religion for that purpose as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2017 (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:Portuguese Way

 * 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) 09:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting portuguese way


 * Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One article, little chance of expansion. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Now has 10 articles, but the other 9 are all places along the trail. 108.210.216.182 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous places-on-trail categories e.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_1. DexDor(talk) 06:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DElete -- The correct title would be Category:Places on Portuguese Way, but we have long precedents for not allowing such categories, asa species of performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this category now has ten articles and is the equivalent of articles on other paths of the Camino de Santiago. The Path described is an active path with over 30,000 people walking it each year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. Being on this route is non-defining for cities etc e.g. Porto. DexDor(talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * not for Porto but definitely for Pontevedra, Barcelos, Redondela etc. it is; 30K tourists annually staying overnight in a town of 30K makes quite an impression JJ Hantsch 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)jjhantsch
 * That it has lots of visitors isn't a defining characteristic. That a town/city is on a hiking trail may be of interest to you, but other people may be more interested in other aspects of the place (e.g. an event that happens/happened there). DexDor(talk) 07:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The town's article is not exclusively about the hiking trail or the participants, but to ignore that level of interaction is inappropriate. Imagine Las Vegas without mentioning the visitors JJ Hantsch 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please add your signature by entering four tildes. More information about this, see WP:SIGNATURES. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one here is saying that the trail shouldn't be mentioned (in the article text). DexDor(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. A grouping for all the towns with this same characteristic, and for geographical completeness larger cities on the same trail, would seem logical. JJ Hantsch 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)
 * No - that could result in articles about cities being in hundreds of categories for characteristics that are non-defining. DexDor(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2018 (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.