Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 10



Category:People of the May Coup (Poland)

 * 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, see also previous discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_20. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People of the May Coup (Poland) to Category:May Coup (Poland) and Category:People of the Second Polish Republic
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories, this category merely contains two subcategories and nothing else, this is unhelpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 10 May 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:Deaf electronic musicians

 * 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) 05:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Deaf electronic musicians to Category:Deaf musicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article in Cat. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 10 May 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:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America

 * 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) 05:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting removed monuments and memorials of the confederate states of america


 * Nominator's rationale: Category has just one entry; perhaps something more general like "Category:Removed monuments and memorials" would be helpful? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * New Orleans has announced publicly, recently, that three other similar monuments are to be removed within weeks. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vigil-vs-removal-of-statue-of-confederate-president-jefferson-davis-in-new-orleans/ deisenbe (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete -- changed my vote Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) of kept rename to Defunct Confederate States of America monuments and memorials, rather than just "removed". Or possibly "former". (I think "defunct" is used a lot in our category names; whether "defunct" or "former" or "removed" or some other word best matches how our categories are named, maybe the closer will know and she can choose. I just think "removed" is slightly narrower than "defunct" -- what if wasn't removed but just fell apart in place or was painted over or whatever? As to nominator's point, there are surely more than one such monument that no longer exists?


 * I suggested "____ Confederate States of America monuments and memorials" rather than the current formulation mainly just to match the parent category, Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials; "of the" slightly gives the impression of "belonging to" and that would only cover those few memorials that existed in the CSA 1861-1865. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Gramatically, a memorial can be former or removed, but it cannot be defunct. deisenbe (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair point. I mean it's arguable -- "defunct" can mean "no longer in use", so mayyyybe. But OK Former Confederate States of America monuments and memorials is fine too. Herostratus (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be wrong. They're not former or defunct. They've just hidden away.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are? My assumption that the category would cover all Confederate monuments and memorials which existed but now don't exist as memorials and monuments. Pieces of them may exist or they may be boxed up in storage (apparently this is the deal with the Liberty Monument) or whatever. We don't want to overcategorize into separate categories for those which were destroyed, those which have just fallen over, those which have been covered up, those in storage, and so forth. "Former" covers all that. "Former" covers a lot of things. Willie Mays is a "former" baseball player. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist on some level. It doesn't even mean he couldn't play in a baseball game if he wanted to. It just means he's not functioning as a baseball player in the sense that its commonly understood. Herostratus (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've just come up with another argument for deletion. We don't have Category:Former baseball players.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So I have. Although we do have "defunct" categories for businesses etc. However, there's an even better argument for deletion: the category contained Liberty Monument (New Orleans). But that's not a Confederate monument after all. There is another, the Jeff Davis monument in New Orleans. But then that's the only one (that I know of), so then we'd have a one-article category. Not worthwhile. Change my vote to Delete, Harris. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although now I see that there might be two: There's the one in New Orleans to Jefferson Davis, and one in North Carolina to Lee, that they are planning to remove. But just planning, at this point. So no prejudice against re-creating the category when and if this goes thru. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is unnecessary. The monuments are usually moved to another location, and their articles can simply explain that.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A second member of this category was just added. Would someone please delete [] which I created in error while setting up this category. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.66.124.118 removed the Liberty Monument from the category giving as rationale that it did not deal with the Confederate States of America. Technically this is true, but it's missing the point, IMHO. Its removal and the removal of the Jefferson Davis memorial (and the others mentioned in the news article quoted above, when and if they happen), belong in the same category, whatever it is called. Note that according to the WP article, it was deliberately removed on Confederate Memorial Day. I restored it and deleted that user's placing it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Relocated_buildings_and_structures_in_Louisiana. Its present location is an unknown warehouse. I don't think "Relocated" is the right word. deisenbe (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Take it to the articles talk page as I recommended. You've been on here long enough to know they rules. Also I would suggest you read WP:NOTNEWS the article is not really that important to the encyclopedia. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 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:Celtic people

 * 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 as WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation. I will redirect rather than delete the nominated category; note that the Wikidata pages https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6672875 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16803722 have too many other clashes to be merged. It appears to me that Category:Asturian people and Category:Galician people do not belong in Celts, so I will remove those. However, as well as those mentioned by Marcocapelle below, I will move Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Celtic diaspora into the parent for now. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting celtic people


 * Nominator's rationale: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.

This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric, Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment after purging (done) the two subcategories Category:Gaels and Category:Fictional Celtic people may be retained in this category or upmerged to Category:Celts; on the other hand a few other subcategories should perhaps be nominated for deletion as well, for the same reason as the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment continued, Category:Ancient Celtic people is also a valid subcategory. The remaining subcategories (other than the three subcategories that I mentioned in the two comments) should be purged though. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support deletion and upmerge to Category:Celts which, as far as I understand, is the term used to describe Celtic people anyway. Sionk (talk) 17:31, 29 May 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:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union to Category:Brexit
 * Nominator's rationale: To match article Brexit. I am putting this forward as a procedural nomination, since this was nominated for speedy renaming but opposed there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union to Category:Brexit – C2D per Brexit. Brandmeistertalk  09:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy: 1.  Ambiguity, per Brexit (disambiguation), particularly with the referendum.  2.  There is a current discussion on the future of the Brexit article at Talk:Brexit.  Might be better to wait for the outcome of that discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there was consensus at Articles for deletion/Brexit (disambiguation) that the term is not ambiguous. Also, that discussion at Talk:Brexit seems to have run out of steam. Do you withdraw your opposition? – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The objection to the speedy is not a valid objection to my mind. The alleged dab article does not in fact exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It did exist when Mhockey registered his objection, but was deleted following the AFD discussion linked above. Hence my invitation to him to withdraw his objection. As he did not respond, here we are with a full discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case the basis of his objection has disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we to have silly little contractions for every country? What next, Luxembexit? Czechit? Part of the tree structure Category:Withdrawal from the European Union and so should follow that naming convention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We use WP:COMMONNAMEs - and if a)the prospect of the withdrawal of a country becomes significant enough to become a "thing" and b)XXexit is the WP:COMMONNAME for that process, then yes. I've certainly seen WP:RS in the mainstream press talking about Grexit, Frexit, Swexit and yes, Czexit.Le Deluge (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have only now added project banners to the talk page, which may generate alerts and more interest. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Renaming would also give a bit more clarity on the scope. Currently the category also contains articles about the 1975 referendum which seems something totally unrelated and they should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Brexit (for good or ill) is clearly the very widely used and widely recognised term for the exit process/decision. Sionk (talk) 17:14, 29 May 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:Dog 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: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Dog songs to Category:Songs about dogs
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't know what a "dog song" is but I assume the category is intended for songs about dogs. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No objection. Rathfelder (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. JDDJS (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. These 'Songs about' are repositories for original research and listing by title. For instance, one entry, has nothing in the text about the subject, so it is listed merely because of the title, Me and You and a Dog Named Boo, and the title does actually suggest it's not about a dog either. So, at this point, it seems to fair to suggest the correct category name should be 'Songs which mention a dog somewhere in the title and or lyrics' How very defining! I doubt there is another project on WP that would permit such vacuous categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that too. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * and . Any further comments in light of direction taken? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I moved Me and You and a Dog Named Boo into this category from Category:Songs about animals. That's not research. Just me trying to populate a category. The point of categories is to help people find articles. Does moving Category:Dog songs to Category:Songs about dogs help?Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Trouble is that a category is for "defined" attributes of the members, roughly speaking, something that is mentioned in the lead of the article. Nowhere in the text if there confirmation that the song is about a dog, Allmusic says the song is about "freedom" and "long walk." Most of these categories, as Carlossuarez46 says, are really pointless categories and adding "Me & You..." in any lyric based category is about as pointless as it gets.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments and precedents for deletion are worth further attention.
 * Delete suffers the usual failings of "X about Y" categories: how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Moreover, this is not a notable genre: songs about dogs other than as a list could probably not be written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thought of making List of songs about dogs but this was previously deleted per Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: if deleted, this should probably be salted as a re-creation. See previous consensus to delete it at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous delete consensus. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete apart from precedenct, which alone suffices to delete this, the "about" category suffers the usual problems of the about categories: how much about the topic must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much about it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck second vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 10 May 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:History of Al-Andalus by period

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:History of Al-Andalus by period to Category:History of Al-Andalus
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it just contains a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 16:08, 11 May 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:Pearson and Darling buildings

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pearson and Darling buildings to Category:Darling and Pearson buildings
 * Nominator's rationale: Per the related article Darling and Pearson, the firm was known primarily by that name. Accordingly, it follows that the category should use that format as well. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency. BD2412  T 03:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:28, 21 May 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:Asian monarchs

 * 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: don't merge this category on its own. The discussion should start at the level of Category:Monarchs. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Asian monarchs to Category:Asian rulers
 * Nominator's rationale: Both are substantially the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is part of Category:Monarchs by continent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - the attempts at interchangeability and odd titled categories relative to a wide range of different sort of rulers in Asia across cultures should not be narrowed down to such a generic and loose term JarrahTree 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose for the same reasons just provide above. This is part of a world-wide category system. Hmains (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (and rename/merge the Kings and monarchs parents to match). These are parallel trees and we do not need such. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 17 May 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:Asian kings

 * 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: don't merge this category on its own. The discussion should start at the level of Category:Kings. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Asian kings to Category:Asian rulers
 * Nominator's rationale: Both are substantially the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is part of Category:Kings. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose same as for the comment at Asian monarchs JarrahTree 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose for the same reasons just provide above. This is part of a world-wide category system. Hmains (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (and rename/merge the Kings and monarchs parents to match). These are parallel trees and we do not need such. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 17 May 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.