Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 4



Category:Ephebophilia

 * 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) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ephebophilia


 * Nominator's rationale: Category currently empty; created solely to include James Levine, demonstrating the presumed purpose of listing people accused of sexual misbehavior and potentially violating WP:BLP. HalJor (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete based on the current purpose. There don’t seem to enough articles for an eponymous category, the main article of which would be Ephebophilia. 165.91.12.221 (talk) 13:02, 9 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:Paintings illustrating the Song of Songs

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Paintings illustrating the Song of Songs to Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes and Category:Song of Songs
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom Little scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Inclined to keep, now three articles, and commons:category:Song_of_Solomon suggests potential for more. – Fayenatic  L ondon 01:22, 5 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:Counts of Brussels

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting counts of brussels


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, overlaps with Category:Counts of Louvain. See also article Counts of Louvain in which Louvain and Brussels are always listed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Might it be better renamed to and made into a subcategory of ? It looks like the first three counts may simply have been styled "Count of Louvain" but all subsequent ones were both Louvain and Brussels. Grutness...  wha?   00:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure which three counts you are referring to. Lambert I, Count of Louvain was the first count of Louvain and he acquired the county of Brussels. So possibly there were counts of Brussels before there were counts of Louvain, but for sure that applies to none of the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Counts of Louvain states that the first mention of the Count of Brussels was with Lambert II - the title may have only become official then. If it came into existence with the acquisition of the county of Brussels (which does make sense, come to think of it), perhaps should simply be renamed . Grutness...  wha?   23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since all article names are consistently including "Count of Louvain", I would assume that this Louvain was considered to be the main property of these counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete leaving a cat-redirect. The article Counts of Brussels redirects to one of Counts of Louvain, which was clearly the main title.  That seems a better solution than changing the category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 7 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:Roman Limes

 * 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:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case. This will ahve to be done manually, so pinging the particpants, who may want to do some of the work,  . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just spotted that the subcats have already been merged elsewhere per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18, so The result of the discussion was:moot. I don't like the fact that the same set of categories was the subject of two simultaneous CfDs, but there it is. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Roman Limes to Category:Roman limites or Category:Roman līmitēs (and category redirect the other)
 * Nominator's rationale: According to Limes and wikt:limes, the plural form of "līmes" is "līmitēs". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This was originally listed at WP:CFD/S (see here) and suggested to move to a full discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:Roman Limes to Category:Roman limes - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Ukraine to Category:Roman limes in Ukraine - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Tunisia to Category:Roman limes in Tunisia over re-direct per C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Syria to Category:Roman limes in Syria - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Scotland to Category:Roman limes in Scotland - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Slovakia to Category:Roman limes in Slovakia - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Serbia to Category:Roman limes in Serbia - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Romania to Category:Roman limes in Romania - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Netherlands to Category:Roman limes in the Netherlands - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Libya to Category:Roman limes in Libya - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in Germany to Category:Roman limes in Germany – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in France to Category:Roman limes in France – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Limes in England to Category:Roman limes in England – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this set. C2D per what? Roman Limes and Roman limes both redirect to Limes, so that doesn't help. The head category and most sibling categories use, so these nominations go against C2C. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Was a typo - should be C2A to correct a typo. Limes should not be capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We may also rename them to Category:Limes, Category:Limes in Ukraine etc. per WP:C2D, how do you feel about that? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that these speedies go ahead. Later, I think that the entire scheme of Roman Walls, Roman Limes and Roman Fortified Roads needs to be re-visited. To that end, I've started a discussion at Talk:Limes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point having a speedy renaming, particularly one that goes against C2C, while a wider discussion is under way. Also, "Limes" is singular; the categories should use a plural noun, and the choice deserves a full discussion e.g. "Roman Limites", "Roman limites", "Roman frontiers", "Roman fortified boundaries".
 * In reply to Marcocapelle's suggestion to drop "Roman", that is not desirable because there are medieval Limites e.g. Limes Saxoniae. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fayenatic london, why bother now while a discussion is still ongoing. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with Roman limites, not limes (with or without Roman), and not with a a capital L. The capitalization of Limes in these constructions is wrong (and would be wrong as Limites).  Dropping the Roman would be grossly ambiguous with limes, especially in category space where we use plurals; about 99.9% of readers would think they were about fruit if they were in the form "Limes in Tunisia". The plural rule means use limites, anyway. We could use just "Limites in Tunisia", etc., but it's not likely to be meaningful to the average reader and may just look like a typo. Roman limites will tell all but the bonehead that it's a Latin word.  I've looked at the RfC opened at Talk:Limes and it's just a bunch of rambling with no indication of going toward a consensus. If we need to change it later to Roman frontiers or whatever, then fine, we can do so. No reason to have incorrectly singular and capitalized categories in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense. Pinging User:Fayenatic london, User:Laurel Lodged and User:Marcocapelle for thoughts. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a sensible interim measure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it's in the right direction. I would prefer to see a full discussion. It seems to me that this may be a case of over-categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME. Why do we need a hierarchy using a foreign word, when we already have Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that objection. Given the amount of discussion above, this should just go to a full discussion instead of languishing in the holding tank.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion to rename the top-level category here and to upmerge the subcategories here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT 1 Rename to Category:Roman frontier fortifications. There was a long discussion on the Roman Limes talk page. I don't think that it went in a definitive direction. This is my current favourite. Not many people would know that limes is singular. One source says, "The word limes here does not mean 'boundary' or 'fortified line' and the context is one of conquest, not defence.". Also, as  wrote  "...it may be better to seek consensus about a rewritten version of the article first.". Also  makes a good point when he says "The multiple possible confusion in British English with Lime (fruit) and Lime tree settles the issue for me (not to mention Birdlime, Lime (material), Quicklime and Slaked lime, all often just called "lime"). Yes, you and I know that limes is pronounced differently in Latin. But, a non-specialist who has just come across "limes" probably does not – and he or she is Wikipedia's target audience. Not us.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with seeking an alternative, per WP:COMMONNAME. This rename is a good alternative, and another alternative based on User:Fayenatic london's comments in the speedy discussion is to disperse the content between the existing Category:Roman fortifications and Category:Roman frontiers. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no *of course!* solution to this problem. I stand by my comment quoted by User:Laurel Lodged. The best solution is the one which will best help the readers. Us editors, and pedantry, have to take a back seat. FWIW, I rather like Category:Roman frontier fortifications. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose -- Pedantically the nom is correct, but few people will know that limites is the correct plural. However in WP pedants usually need to give way to common usage.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural 'You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit.' Or, indeed, the species of tree under which you should not park your car. Unless you enjoy washing sticky gunk off your car. Narky Blert (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case. I can't see the justification for using a foreign word with an ambiguous scope, except for WP:SHAREDNAME which is explicitly against our guideline about over-categorisation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support because category names are supposed to be plural, not singular. "Roman limes" sounds like fruit trees, just like Black Falcon says.  208.95.51.38 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And what do you think of the further discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the speedy discussion? I was referring to Black Falcon's comment of "You're right, of course, but few people will know"  208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that he means the ALT suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply -- My objective my be achieved by a rename to Category:Roman limēs (with the diacritical to emphasise that the second vowel is pronounced), but it may be useful to have Category:Roman līmes as a cat-redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion regarding the alternative view in this discussion that we do not need an ambiguous foreign word while we have common words available ("fortifications" and "frontiers")? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)he
 * I do not think "fortifictions" is satisfactory, as limēs are were rather different from fortresses; indeed, I am not sure that all of them were fortified. Frontiers were probably do.  The English limit is derived from the word.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably User:Fayenatic london's solution to split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case is then the best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. We have a case here where the same Latin word was used for dissimilar things; since this isn't la.wikipedia we don't need to care, and should categorize as makes the most sense in English for the subject at hand. There may be cases that end up both the frontiers and fortifications categories, and that's okay (for cases that actually qualify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection from me either. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:37, 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.

Category:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean

 * 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. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lawyers of commonwealth of nations member countries in the caribbean


 * Nominator's rationale: For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason why this would represent a separate class of topic from the rest of the Caribbean and/or from Commonwealth of Nations member countries outside of the Caribbean. Are they some unique class of lawyer, radically unlike other lawyers, somehow? Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as a trivial intersection category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Possible keep -- There is a common Appeal Court for several islands in the West Indies, so that this category is potentially about those entitled to practise in that court. However I do not know who has rights of audience there.  If this were about accountants or doctors, I would probably support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The common Caribbean Appeal Court is perhaps a far-fetched argument, also because information about the Appeal Court is not very easy to find, e.g. Commonwealth of Nations does not mention anything about a common organisation structure for legal affairs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete an unneeded container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 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:South Korean K-pop singers

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

-
 * Propose merging Category:South Korean K-pop singers to Category:K-pop singers
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant. It's likely that 98% of the contents in Category:K-pop singers would fit into this subcategory. It would make more sense to categorize non-natives by genre (like Category:Japanese K-pop singers, Category:Chinese K-pop singers, etc), but not by native South Koreans. ℯ  xplicit  04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – any musicians in North Korea would most likely get censored and executed by the government. We’re left only with South Korea. 165.91.13.236 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge - Basically the same. Already stated here, but any exception should have their own category. Lone  direwolf  21:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge - redundant as the vast percentage of of K-Pop is done by South Korean artists. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:43, 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.