Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 21



Category:World Aquatics Championships templates

 * 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 merge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting world aquatics championships templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to category:Swimming templates per WP:SMALLCAT. Izno (talk) 23:58, 21 September 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:Roman Catholic Personal Prelates

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Personal Prelates to Category:Catholic Church offices
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary category layer because Opus Dei is the only existing personal prelature. A speedy renaming request was put on hold. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Category:Roman Catholic Personal Prelates to Category:Catholic personal prelates – WP:C2C: Immedately most relevant parent category Category:Catholic personal prelatures. For the rest, WP:C2A: Noun(s). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there more personal prelates? If not this, then the only subcategory should probably be upmerged. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merging of the subcat makes sense, this can't be done speedily though, and it should also be merged to Category:Opus Dei leaders. The proposed rename can be speedied indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Assuming there really are no other cases of Personal Prelates, which I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:36, 24 September 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:Linguists of the Mesoamerican languages

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Mesoamerican languages to Category:Linguists of Mesoamerican languages
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Turkic languages to Category:Linguists of Turkic languages
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Austronesian languages to Category:Linguists of Austronesian languages
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Southeast Asian languages to Category:Linguists of Southeast Asian languages
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Himalayan languages to Category:Linguists of Himalayan languages
 * Propose renaming Category:Linguists of the Australian aboriginal languages to Category:Linguists of Australian aboriginal languages


 * Nominator's rationale: The word "the" is not necessary, and mostly absent within Category:Linguists by language group of study, but three of the current names were chosen at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 20 and may not be eligible for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * rename per nom as obviously superior usage. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom JarrahTree 13:37, 30 September 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:Rebellious children

 * 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. This seems like it was a fait accompli at the time of close, what with the creation of, the category was left empty. This is without prejudice to a new nomination for . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rebellious children


 * Nominator's rationale: We already have a full category structure at Category:Rebels and the people in this category were not children when they rebelled. (They were adults who rebelled against their father.) Also, this category could be treated as a joke. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: You are misunderstanding the category, perhaps the name is tad misleading. Its purpose is to list children who rebelled against their parent(s), it has nothing to do with their age. I thought the original name for the category People who rebelled against their parent was a mouthful.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as too general/ambiguous. We have existing categories such as Category:Pretenders to the English throne. Note: The category was created without any parent categories - Go-Chlodio, how did you intend this to fit into the wp categorization tree? DexDor(talk) 14:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't see how it's broad? Some people I have spoken to actually argue that it was somewhat rare, which is a part of the reason why I decided to create this category. Anyhow, it has nothing do with the English nor pretenders, most of these rebellious children just wanted to more power, but didn't necessarily want to depose their parent. I suppose it could be a subcategory of Category:Rebels.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, as it concerns an insufficiently defining characteristic. If kept, change name e.g. to Category:Rebellious princes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Rebellious princes would be nice. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, unclear inclusion criteria; Category:Rebellious princes would be OK with me. Neutralitytalk 15:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Rebellious princes. This seems to cover the whole scope of the present content.  I think Robert Curthose rebelled against his younger brother, rather than his father.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert Curthose did rebel against his father; William the Conqueror actually died from wounds that were caused by his rebellion. William was bitter about the whole thing and considered disinheriting Robert on his deathbed, but was convinced to leave him Normandy.
 * William II and Robert did war, but I wouldn't say that Robert rebelled because he wasn't a subordinate of the king of the English, but the king of the Franks. Go-Chlodio (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename per Marcocapelle. The current name sounds like it's meant to hold children who throw temper tantrums :-)  Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Rebellious princes. These are princes or members of the royal family who rebelled against their kinsmen. Dimadick (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Renamed to Category:Rebellious princes and added to category Category:Rebels. Go-Chlodio (talk) 17:31, 24 September 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:Psorospermum 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: merge categories; delete template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Psorospermum stubs to Category:Malpighiales stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Only used on 2 articles. Merge category by replacing Template:Psorospermum-stub with Template:Malpighiales-stub then delete both the category and the template. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, what is the general rule for how big stub cats need to be to be used? As I eventually create more articles in the Psorospermum genus, the stub category will populate. In addition, it is properly nested within Mapighiales-stubs and within the Hypericaceae category. I'm not sure what the point of removing it would be. Thanks Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 60 is the usual minimum size for a stub category. please comment, as our resident expert on stub categories.
 * As for the hierarchies above the nominated category, it's only within that parent stub category after I added it today. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. What about a stub template and category for the tribe the genus is in, which I believe is Hypericaceae? There would be a lot more articles to populate that stub category. I am by no means an expert in this area, I'm just trying to better organize the Hypericaceae family, so whatever would seem to be the right course of action, by all means take it. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 19:49, 21 September 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:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month

 * 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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting non-gregorian observances by gregorian month


 * Propose merging into Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars:
 * Category:Non-Gregorian January observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian February observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian March observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian March observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian April observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian May observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian June observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian July observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian August observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian September observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian October observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian November observances
 * Category:Non-Gregorian December observances
 * Nominator's rationale: If the observance isn't on the Gregorian calendar, it doesn't belong to a Gregorian month. 37.26.146.197 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with nominator that these are obscure categories. However Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars is undesirable as a merge target, since this is largely a container category. I would not mind merging them to Category:January observances though, and so on for the other 11 months. For example Agonalia was celebrated on a day equivalent to January 9, so why not categorize it there? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (probably support) -- This whole tree seems like a load of nonsense to me. We have a mixture of different feasts whose date is determined by lunar and other calendars.  Chinese and Tibetan New Year will depend on a lunar calendar.  American Mother's Day is always in May, so why is it in this tree at all?  The Anglican Mothering Sunday usually falls in March, but its date is determined by that of Easter.  The merge target is probably going to be rather large, so that it may be useful to split it based on the specific calendar or event from which the date is determined, e.g. Category:Observances whose date is related to Easter.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter‎ already exists, and I think all articles that belong there are there already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * leaning delete What I see is that this is a way to try to assign the various holidays to approximate time of years, e.g. Category:Shavuot sits in both May and June. I'm not terribly convinced this is a good way to do it. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 24 September 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:Incorporations based in Australia

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Incorporations based in Australia to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: Not defining Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the term is not used in Australia JarrahTree 09:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Incorporation, or whatever other equivalent term is used in Australia in lieu, is not a defining point of distinction between some organizations and others — it's simply the legal process by which all organizations or companies become organizations or companies, and it's also not a class noun that can be pluralized as a set term for what organizations are: they can be incorporated as an action, but that fact does not make them incorporations as a thing. So it's indiscriminate and not relevant to the category tree. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question -- What is the normal term for these in Australia? In US they would be called Non-profit organisations, but in Britain, they would be charities.  I note that there is a sibling for charities.  Are they all charities?  If so, Distribute to appropriate charity categories.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All charities are non-profit organizations, but not all non-profit organizations are automatically charities. Even in Britain, it's still possible for a non-profit organisation to be something other than a charity, so the terms still aren't strictly interchangeable. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Non-profit organizations are poorly defined, like most negative characterizations. But the articles in this category don't seem to have much in common. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 1 October 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:People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people associated with the mmr vaccine controversy


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:OCASSOC, it is also not defining for many people in this category, and if it is they are already prominently mentioned in the MMR vaccine controversy article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. We should be very sparing with "People associated with" categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a suitable candidate for a category - it includes respected scientists and outright cranks, which indicates a real problem. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no "controversy" regarding vaccines, just pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. It looks like they stole this particular propaganda technique from the Teach the Controversy people. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Presence of the word "controversy" alone should be enough to suspect this, but any category that categorises luminaries such as Ben Goldacre alongside eyebrow-raisers like Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield is worse than useless anyway. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 12:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Marcocapelle says, this is a clear cut example of what WP:OCASSOC advises against. The category lumps people who fought against the bollocks together with people who pushed the bollocks; I'm damned sure people like Ben Goldacre wouldn't want to be tarred with the brush of 'association', and all the bollocks-pushers are already clearly identified in the relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- but we might purge and repurpose it was Category:Opponents of MMR vaccination or such like. We need a category for the people guilty of promoting the bad science claim that MMR led to autism.  I suspect that there are enough of them to make a worthwhile (though small) category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We do already have Category:Anti-vaccination activists. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Too much mixture of cranks and mainstreams. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete As many have said above, this cat seems a bit too broad including both pro and anti-vaxers. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete another "associated with" category which has unclear inclusion criteria, as always. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 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:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Satanism

 * 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; place article in . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting converts to roman catholicism from satanism


 * Nominator's rationale: A category with literally only one member (Bartolo Longo). It's hard to imagine there being many -- or even any -- others. Calton | Talk 05:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. A creative attempt to legitimise Catholicism, but a mistaken one IMO. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Satanism isn't a religion per se — there's a philosophy which people might subscribe to as individuals, but there's no "church" organization to which Satanists necessarily belong. It's also not a thing people are born into as a rule — a Satanist who "converts" to Catholicism is, in all likelihood, a person who was born Catholic and then espoused Satanism for a while during his rebellious youth before coming back to Catholicism, which is exactly what Bartolo Longo's article describes him as being. So he's not so much a "convert" as a lapsed Catholic who came back home later in life — and that's not a defining characteristic for the purposes of the category system. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Small comment on that: the article states that his parents were Catholic, not that Bartolo Longo was Catholic himself in his early adulthood. Note I would not count (only) being raised Catholic as a child. Furthermore, since we have a Category:Former Satanists there is no reason to remove him from that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge; but if one is baptized into the RCC, even as an non-consenting infant, until recently to formally leave it, there was a cumbersome process (see Formal act of defection from the Catholic Church). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then he definitely belongs in (he was, then he wasn't) but not in . Actually looking into the contents of the Bartolo Longo article, growing up in 1840s Italy with "devout Roman Catholic parents" would without the shadow of a doubt involve infant baptism and Catholic education. He was however beatified by the Roman Catholic Church for renouncing Satanism and returning (word found in the first lede line) to Catholicism, so this conversion (although to his original faith) is a defining topic. Note to  is your upmerge opinion your final say in the matter? Current indentation does not suggets that. Place Clichy (talk) 13:31, 27 September 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:Selina Jen

 * 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) 12:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting selina jen


 * Nominator's rationale: Two albums which are appropriately categorized under an "albums by artist" subcategory. This is an unnecessary parent category per WP:OCEPON. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every musician who exists does not automatically get one of these just to parent her albums category and WP:BLP — this is done only for artists who have a lot of spinoff content that needs artist-related categorization beyond the standard "albums cat + songs cat + BLP". But that's not present here at all, so there's no navigational need for this. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:49, 21 September 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:Ella Chen

 * 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) 12:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ella chen


 * Nominator's rationale: Only related article is an album which is in an appropriate albums category. Unneeded eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every musician who exists does not automatically get one of these just to parent her albums category and WP:BLP — this is done only for artists who have a lot of spinoff content that needs artist-related categorization beyond the standard "albums cat + songs cat + BLP". But that's not present here at all, so there's no navigational need for this. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 21 September 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.