Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 10



Category:Maps of Cornwall

 * 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 as a category by moving to Maps of Cornwall and then merging the text to Geography of Cornwall. A bit complex, but to preserve attribution there has to be a redirect, so... The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting maps of cornwall


 * Nominator's rationale: I am not aware of any notable maps that would populate this category, any map of the British Isles has Cornwall in it, and we hardly need a category to keep track of OS Landranger maps because they don't have individual articles. I found it with the single article Hundreds of Cornwall in it, which is not a map, and is correctly categorized in other categories. Dysklyver  21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment You must not empty a category before nominating it for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you do if you found a category that has only one page in it and that page didn't belong in the category? Would correcting the page's categorization and then waiting for someone else to CSD tag the category (for being empty) have been better? DexDor(talk) 07:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve been thinking I could turn this into an article, there’s already a bit of content there, and it could refer to OS maps and such. Maps of Cornwall, would be of more use than this category is. Dysklyver  09:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete an article masquerading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We might have an ARTICLE on Maps of Cornwall, but what we have here deserves WP:TNT, as it is written from a grossly Cornish-nationalist POV. Cornwall has for the last 1000, perhaps 1200, years been an ordinary English county in most respects.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * we don't have that article, it is just a redirect I was considering making. Also for the sake of accuracy in the dates, the county of Cornwall was formed in the late 1700's, it was previously a duchy administered by the Stannary Parliaments. So its been a normal English county for about 250 years. Dysklyver  17:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a longstanding category that was probably once populated with images that are now stored at commons:Category:Maps of Cornwall. The paragraph of text dates back to the creation of the category in 2006. Merge text on the category page to Geography of Cornwall, and delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:40, 16 November 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:Songs about objects

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs about objects


 * Nominator's rationale: Playing word association games at WP with categories is not in spirit of an encyclopedia. Objects aren't definable. How can we have a category Songs about objects? Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete We really need to par down "songs about" categories. I think this works for things like "songs about World War I" or "Songs about Christmas", but some of these categories are just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a completely random collection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculously overbroad category that would rope in a significant percentage of all the songs that have Wikipedia articles at all if it were fully populated. People really need to cut this "songs about X" stuff out. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fluff.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:47, 16 November 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:Mammals of Libya

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Mammals of Libya to Category:Mammals of North Africa
 * Propose merging Category:Mammals of Algeria to Category:Mammals of North Africa
 * Nominator's rationale: Per previous CFD - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_23. Possibly salt. Note: Categories such as Category:Rodents of North Africa are a better way of categorizing as they avoid putting articles in a large number of country-specific categories. DexDor(talk) 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per previous cfd and other cfds. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per many precedents. There may be a case of splitting between fauna of the more habitable coastal strip and fauna of the Sahara, but that is probably a discussion for another day.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: why are these particular categories selected for merging? If all Mammals-by-country categories are to be abolished, shouldn't that be the proposal? Has the merger of Category:Mammals of Canada, Category:Mammals of Guatemala, Category:Mammals of Mexico, Category:Mammals of the United States etc. into Category:Mammals of North America been similarly proposed, for example (I don't see that it has)? Would not exactly the same arguments apply? Or do North American mammalian species have greater respect for national borders? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * These particular categories have been selected because they were recreated after being deleted. We should move away from categorizing species by which countries they are found in as that leads to absurdities such as Category:Fauna_of_Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia (CFD), some articles being in dozens of country categories, articles being placed in a Foos of Europe category because they are found in a Pacific Island that is governed by France etc. Lists are more suitable.  We should categorize species etc by large physical regions (e.g. continents/sub-continents - which may in some cases, e.g. Australia, correspond to countries).  Unfortunately this is too big/complicated to do in one huge CFD. DexDor(talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. I think a list List of mammals found in Libya, which could have sectons for those found elsewhere, and those only found in Libya (assuming there are such) would work. However making it a category over associates some very broadly ranging animals with specific countries. The list would also allow us to include animals that were in Libya in historic times but are either now extinct or have reduced ranges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is List of mammals of Libya which lists 97 (rather than the 3 articles currently in the category). This is a good example of a list that's a lot better than a category. DexDor(talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. I fully agree that "[Animals] of [Country]" is lists, not categories. But this needs to be done for the group, not one at a time. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 18 November 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:Polish resistance fighters of World War II

 * 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. The other subcats of Category:World War II resistance members should be nominated forwith. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Polish resistance fighters of World War II to Category:Polish resistance fighters
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have the same scope. Neither of the sibling categories adds "of World War II" to the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Object. The scope is NOT the same. First, its sister subcategory Cursed Soldiers refers to post-WWII era. Second, it is possible in the future we may decide to create a resistance fighters category grouping the participants of the 19th century Polish uprising. Either way, the two categories have a clear parent-child relationship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Which 19th-century uprising? We have articles on the Greater Poland uprising (1806), the November Uprising (1830-1831), the Greater Poland uprising (1846), the Kraków uprising (1846), the Greater Poland uprising (1848), the January Uprising (1863-1864), and the Uprising of Polish political exiles in Siberia (1866). Polish insurgents were active for much of the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Afaics, participants to 19th-century uprisings are never referred to as "resistance". This term is exclusively used for resistance against Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There have been a series of Polish risings. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the World War II category is part of a larger structure of WWII resistance makes it logical to leave the categories are they are. Even if all Polish resistance fighters had fought in WWII (which does not actually appear to be the case, although some of this gets into the tricky issue of who to categorize as Polish, however ethnic Polish subjects of Russia through the Russian Empire Kingdom of Poland almost certainly count) This is a place where the general structure would justify a parent container category with one sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Polish resistance fighters of World War II‎ and several of its subcats are of non-trivial size. Seems like a structured, populated, and worthwhile branch of Category:Polish resistance fighters.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have checked articles starting with A to F of Category:Polish resistance fighters and none of them was related to 19th-century uprisings, they were all about WWII resistance fighters. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep we should be specific and this is a viable title. WWII is not the only war where Poland had a resistance, and even if it was, a specific title is always good. Dysklyver  20:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. It is then perhaps better to rename all siblings into "of World War II". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 15 November 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.

Medieval years by continent

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Below is an example nomination. The full list of nominated categories can be found on the talk page.
 * Propose merging Category:502 by continent to Category:502
 * Propose merging Category:502 establishments by continent to Category:502 establishments
 * Propose merging Category:502 disestablishments by continent to Category:502 disestablishments
 * Nominator's rationale: merge as a redundant container category level. By far the most medieval year categories contain only one or two continents, Europe and/or Asia. Note that the execution of the nomination will require editing Template:Year in continent category, Template:EstcatContinent and Template:DisestcatContinent. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- For more recent periods there may be enough content to merit such splits, but only in recent centuries. I presume this is a sample nom, to be followed by one or more comprehensive ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the latter, see first line of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge This is just too small a category structure overall to justify this many sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge sparsely populated cats.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:34, 12 November 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:Muscat, Oman

 * 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: Symbol move vote.svg Relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Muscat, Oman to Category:Muscat
 * Nominator's rationale: Subject to rename this category into Muscat article as the primary topic after the RM discussion of 3 August 2017. This should include sub-categories. ApprenticeFan  work 07:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename -- I cannot think of any other use of Muscat, which would need that we need a disambiguator. This is not a case like London, Ontario or Birmingham, Alabama, where there is room for confusion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except of course for the rather famous grape, with 200 varieties and tens of thousands (?) of wines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also a common surname in Malta, but that wouldn't interfere with a rename of this category. Grutness...wha?  00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the grape provides enough potential confusion to justify the categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 11 November 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:Wrestlers who appeared in pornographic films

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wrestlers who appeared in pornographic films


 * Nominator's rationale: Seems like a trivia, non-encyclopedic type of a category. There is no similar category to this that I can find, and it doesn't fit into any particular trees. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; clearly falls under WP:PERFCAT. Trivialist (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- clearly a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but provide the search link here on how to dynamically create the interesting, as per working tricks towards the bottom of Category_intersection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a trivial overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a trivia & non-encyclopedic category. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial intersection of traits with no WP:DEFINING relationship to each other. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:35, 14 November 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.