Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 3



Category:1786 events of the French Revolution

 * 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 per nom and to ALT3 Category:Causes of the French Revolution. Yes, I am WP:INVOLVED. However, this discussion is 33 days overdue for closure, and consensus is clear, so I think that Wikipedia is better served by closing it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:1786 events of the French Revolution to Category:1786 in France
 * Propose merging Category:1787 events of the French Revolution to Category:1787 in France
 * Propose merging Category:1788 events of the French Revolution to Category:1788 in France
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic categories, the French Revolution started in 1789. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT1 merge to Category:Revolts preceding the French Revolution or ALT2: Category:Precursor events of the French Revolution. The nom is right that the current titles are anachronistic, but AFAICS the contents of these categories are all accepted precursors of the French Revolution. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * or ALT3 Category:Causes of the French Revolution per article Causes of the French Revolution and also because "causes" is more defining and less subjective. By the way, I'm assuming we are now discussing a second merge target, without withdrawing Category:1786 in France etc. as the first merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Merge all ALT3 Category:Causes of the French Revolution. I think there is no need to merge also to 17xx in France, as I think the articles are already there.  "revolts" would not do as the Eden commercial treaty was not a revolt.  I favour asingle target as this will give about the minimum accepted size for a category of 5 articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all articles are also in Category:17yy in France, so these merge targets are still needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support ALT3 Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:16, 11 March 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:Equivalent units

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Equivalent units to Category:Units of measurement
 * Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize things by how they are named. Note: this category currently contains just one article so is unnecessary. If not deleted then it should be renamed to something that aligns with the category text. DexDor(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, possibly rename: This is a new cat - give me some time :) It is only by doing an incidental search on "equivalent" that I managed to find all of these in the first place. Originally, I did put them into Category:Units of measurement, but only when I realized there where so many, did I create the subcat. I just moved them in now after seeing this merge proposal, so you can get the idea. Perhaps it should be renamed to Category:Measures of "Equivalence" - suggestions welcomed. Note that I have not finished my original search and believe that many more are to come. These are all poorly known non-international measures that would pollute the parent category that has well known measures. Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you created this category and put one article in it (presumably to prevent it from being CSDed for being empty) - then went on creating other unconventional/bizarre categories; that's (IMO) close to being WP:DISRUPTIVE. We don't categorize things like this based on whether they are well known or not. DexDor(talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SHAREDNAME, this is categorization by the word "equivalent" in the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, e.g. oil is sold in a unit called "oil barrel" which doesn't belong in this category, but similar units that have the word "equivalent" do. Similarly, if one of the articles was renamed to "kiloton" then it would have to be removed from the category. DexDor(talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories based on the coincidence of the same word are utterly pointless.Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly rename: this is not simply a matter of WP:SHAREDNAME. The nominator was distracted by the fact the category was initially populated only with pages whose names include the word "equivalent", but a little scrutiny reveals it to be a lot more than that. This is a set of measurement units whose shared WP:DEFINING characteristic is that they quantify one thing not other by its intrinsic characteristics, in at least two broad types for I use descriptive labels:
 * conversion units which equate measurements of two different things, e.g.
 * Album-equivalent unit, which equates music downloads and streaming with album sales
 * Passenger car equivalent which equates the road usage density of various modes of transport (e.g. private car/bicycle/bus)
 * Residential Customer Equivalent, which allows comparison of the size of customer base between energy companies
 * utility comparators or adjusted units, which modify an intrinsic characteristic by its utility for a given purpose
 * Dry Sheep Equivalent, which adjusts a measurement of land area by its ability to include support sheep. Similar to the concept of adjusted acre in Irish agriculture
 * I don't claim that my spur-of-the moment labels are workable, or that the cat's current title is sound. But there is clearly a lot more to this than shared name. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 12 April 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:Places on the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail

 * 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) 05:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting places on the juan bautista de anza national historic trail


 * Propose deleting Category:Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail
 * Nominator's rationale: Being on this trail is non-defining for places such as Nogales, Arizona, Interstate 8, Ventura Freeway and El Escorpión Park.
 * Note: This is the only "Places on ..." category in enwp.  See many previous discussions for places-on-trail categories e.g. this one.  Note: The eponymous article is already in Category:National Historic Trails of the United States etc so no upmerge is necessary. For info: The creator of the places category is now blocked. DexDor(talk) 15:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Templatise or Listify. Makes more sense either as a list (either within the main article or stand-alone) or as a navbox. Grutness... wha?   18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created Draft:Places on the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail from the places in the categories. DexDor(talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge two into one I do not see a clear distinction between the two categories, but one category containing both makes sense.  I do not support deletion, nor do I support merging into one superior category where this identification will (deliberately) get lost.  That does not aid in navigation as a category should. Trackinfo (talk) 05:13, 7 April 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:Carniolan society

 * 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 to Category:Slovene dialects. It seems we agree that this is the best outcome. I'll leave the subcategorization to experts. Tone 08:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Carniolan society to Category:Slovene dialects
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content. Alternatively it might be split, instead of merged, in Category:Lower Carniolan dialect group and Category:Upper Carniolan dialect group as subcategories of Category:Slovene dialects but that would result in quite tiny categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I know nothing of the subject, but all the content relates to dialects, so that the category should be called XX dialects, not society. What the right structure should be is beyond me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the categorization does not make sense. It should be called Carniolan dialects as a subcat of Slovene dialects. --Tone 22:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But then they should still be subdivided in Upper and Lower, as these are separate classes within the Slovenian language. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. But this is already another question. --Tone 20:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite, the nomination concerns merge or split. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, it should be renamed first, then recategorized. --Tone 09:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Carniolan dialects does not exist as a separate class of dialects within the Slovenian language. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 11 March 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:16th-century animal births

 * 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 13. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:16th-century animal births to Category:16th-century individual animals
 * Propose merging Category:1516 animal deaths to Category:16th-century individual animals and Category:1516 deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1553 animal deaths to Category:16th-century individual animals and Category:1553 deaths
 * Propose merging Category:17th-century animal births to Category:17th-century individual animals
 * Propose merging Category:1606 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1606 deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1644 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1644 deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1655 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1655 deaths
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 4 articles each in the whole 16th and 17th century, no need to diffuse them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I have created some of these categories, but they haven't been expanded in years. Dimadick (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two different issues here. I support merging the individual year categories per WP:SMALLCAT but want to retain the 16th-century animal births and 17th-century individual animals categories.  The nominator's rationale for merging the century cats is not clear and, in particular, why have only the 16th-century and 17th-century been nominated when we also have Category:18th-century animal births, Category:19th-century animal births, Category:20th-century animal births and Category:21st-century animal births which have not been nominated? Greenshed (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In later centuries WP:SMALLCAT may not be as applicable, I would prefer to nominate them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, century of birth does not define century of existence alone. Bankes's Horse lived in both the 16th and 17th centuries, for example. Greenshed (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Banke's Horse will also be in the 17th century because of the merger of Category:1606 animal deaths. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True but some animals live for several centuries, e.g. Adwaita, Tu'i Malila, etc. To rephrase, centuries of birth and death do not define centuries of existence alone. Greenshed (talk) 23:47, 4 April 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:Bollywood content 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. (Yes, I am WP:INVOLVED, but this has been open 5 weeks and consensus is clear). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bollywood content lists to Category:Bollywood-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: per convention for list categories, and because half its items are people not content. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Re-create: I agree with the nominator that we should create Category:Bollywood related lists. Only thing thats bother me that we should not use dash - after word Bollywood. Zafar24  Talk  02:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If renamed, the dash should be kept for consistency. All -related list categories have a dash. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 11 March 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.