Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 19



Category:Diplomatic missions in Harris County, Texas

 * 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. Timrollpickering 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting diplomatic missions in harris county, texas


 * Nominator's rationale: Only contains Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston, and no pages. Looking at the subcategories of Category:Diplomatic missions in the United States, none of them are indexed by county, only by city where applicable. MBD123 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - upmerge not needed as Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston is already included in the parents of Category:Diplomatic missions in Harris County, Texas. Oculi (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge this and the Houston subcat and Dallas sibling to Category:Diplomatic missions in Texas. perhaps better Category:Consulates in Texas, with headnote explaining that it includes consulates-general.  The Harris County cat seems to exist because the Pakistani one is near, rather than in, the city.  I am not certain that a consulate is strictly a diplomatic mission, since its objective is to deal with the needs of individuals, as opposed to representing a government to a government, the function of an embassy.  I would be surprised to learn of any embassies except in (or near) Washington DC and Missions (which are not embassies) to UNO.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, this concerns a trivial intersection of diplomatic missions with country subdivision. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 5 August 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:Urban sprawl

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 16. ℯ xplicit  03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Urban sprawl to Category:Peri-urbanisation
 * Nominator's rationale: We have two articles on this subject one called urban sprawl the other peri-urbanisation; the former is cited as the topic article for the category. In the introduction to that article it is noted that the term "urban sprawl" is problematic, even pejorative. ("The term urban sprawl is highly politicized, and almost always has negative connotations. It is criticized for causing environmental degradation, and intensifying segregation and undermining the vitality of existing urban areas and attacked on aesthetic grounds. Due to the pejorative meaning of the term, few openly support urban sprawl as such. The term has become a rallying cry for managing urban growth"). In light of that, I suggest we rename the category to the neutral term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Urbanization. Only few articles in this category are related to Urban sprawl or Peri-urbanisation in particular, most articles are about other topics within the more general area of urbanization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per Marcocapelle: that is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge – on my reading, several other member articles prominently mention "urban sprawl" as a defining aspect of their own topic. I don't remember coming across "peri-urban" before, but it is used in a few dozen Wikipedia articles, so perhaps renaming is appropriate. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Only few articles" or "several other articles", that may not be so far apart. Anyway, if the category is kept then move/purge the articles that are not about this topic. I do not have a strong opinion about renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 5 August 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:Radio drama actors

 * 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) 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting radio drama actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Probably a 100% overlap with category:Radio actors; "drama" specifciation seems overdetailed. Only has 4 articles Cnbrb (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - the 4 people currently in this category are already in other subcats of Category:Radio actors which is under Category:Radio drama. DexDor(talk) 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to actors. Most actors during their careers will perform on radio, TV and film, so that a split is not useful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many or even most actors will do both comedy and drama over the course of their careers (even Robin Williams did Dead Poets Society, after all), so the drama vs. comedy question is not defining. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 25 July 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:Jupiter trojan stubs

 * 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 and upmerge template (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jupiter trojan stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: There's evidently interest in this topic, as all articles are above the stub level. Propose deleting this stub category, and having the template upmerge to . Dawynn (talk) 14:37, 19 July 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.

Years in France

 * 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. Timrollpickering 21:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Years in the French First Republic to Category:Years in France
 * Propose merging Category:Years of the French Third Republic to Category:Years in France
 * Nominator's rationale: The French First Republic (1792-1804) and French Third Republic (1870-1940) are not past countries, they are past political regimes of an extant country, France. Years categories before, in-between and after these regimes are all listed in Category:Years in France, and I do not see any purpose of singling out these two subcategories. Note that they are not correctly filled anyway, Years of the French Third Republic starting with Category:1902 in France while the regime started in 1870. Place Clichy (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep First Republic due to contents not being part of modern day France eg. Mont-Terrible would be in modern Switzerland. As for the Third Republic, tt's quite useful to have the years under the category tree for but maybe could be renamed to . Tim! (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Borders change often. We don't usually catch up every change by creating an entire new years in country category tree. Plus Mont-Terrible was partly in modern-day France. Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have a strong opinion about the nominated categories, but I do think that at a lower level in the tree for example Category:1793 in the French First Republic ought to be merged to Category:1793 in France. The fact that borders of countries are changing in the course of time is not very relevant in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow-up discussion about the lower level categories, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_21. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge; the nominator makes a good argument, and aside from Tim's argument, I can't see why someone would think these ones to be helpful. I agree with the nominator's response; having separate trees to reflect territorial changes is not normal, and making it normal would be quite unhelpful.  Consider Category:Years in Poland, for example; we have a single tree that embraces the time before the merger with Lithuania, between the merger and the First Partition, between the First and Second Partitions, between the Second and Third Partitions, the Congress period, between independence and the Second World War, and after the Second World War.  The solution is to put things in the category for where they were at the time: something in Vilnius in 1924 belongs in "Poland in 1924" and in 1994 belongs in "Lithuania in 1994"; something in Wheeling in 1857 and 1867 belongs in "Virginia in 1857" and "West Virginia in 1867", etc.  Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge; An unhelpful subcategory. Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge in addition all the subtree needs to be tagged and merged. Why do we have Category:1795 in the French First Republic and Category:1795 in France when they are one and the same? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 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:Economic history of the United States-related lists

 * 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. Timrollpickering 08:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic history of the United States-related lists to Category:United States economic history-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with super category tree. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename. Aside from the super category tree, the current name is hard to parse (a garden-path sentence), initially reading as if this covers the economic history of lists that are related to the United States.  Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 19 July 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:Thibodaux Senators

 * 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. Timrollpickering 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting thibodaux senators


 * Nominator's rationale: Defunct minor league team category with just two entries and unlikely to get more. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I have just emptied the subcategory, because Jack Baldschun appears to have played for the Washington Senators rather than for the Thibodaux Senators. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment', Baldschun did play for Thibodeaux per Baseballreference....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:04, 19 July 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:Arab 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 08:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Arab people to Category:Arabs
 * Ditto for Category:Medieval Arab people, Category:Ancient Arab people, Category:Fictional Arab people, Category:Lists of Arab people, Category:Arab people by religion, Category:Arab people by occupation, Category:Arab people by century, Category:3rd-century Arab people, Category:4th-century Arab people, Category:5th-century Arab people, Category:6th-century Arab people, Category:7th-century Arab people, Category:8th-century Arab people, Category:9th-century Arab people, Category:10th-century Arab people, Category:11th-century Arab people, Category:12th-century Arab people, Category:13th-century Arab people, Category:14th-century Arab people, and Category:15th-century Arab people.
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article is Arabs, and Arab people is a redirect to it. As far as I know, we don't generally use "people" when the demonym is commonly and unambiguously used to refer to the people in question, e.g. Category:Ancient Greeks rather than the redirect Category:Ancient Greek people.  Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, in many cases we add "people" in category names in order to distinct it from the topic category (e.g. Category:Franks as a topic category and Category:Frankish people as a set category) but that is not strictly needed here since the topic category is in singular: Category:Arab. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the article was moved via an RM from Arab people to Arabs in 2014 and there seems to be no obstacle (such as ambiguity) to the category being renamed accordingly. Oculi (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -- People is the primary use, though Arab can be an adjective for other things too, such as horses. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 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.