Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 4



Category:Swedish-speaking 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: containerize. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose containerization swedish-speaking people


 * Nominator's rationale: All of the Fooish-speaking people categories ought to be containerized, so this is a trial balloon. While Sweden is not 100% Swedish-speaking, there is nothing remarkable about any of the hundreds of notable Swedes to be proficient in the language nor are people really notable for speaking Swedish. If this is successful, I'll nominate the others for containerization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Shouldn't we containerize the subCategory:Swedish-speaking Finns as well? For people who are not in any of the three two subcategories of the latter it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle Yes, if this passes, I'll put the lot of Fooish-speaking whatevers up. But rather than tag them all now, wanted to test the waters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support nom -- The existence of subCategory:Swedish-speaking Finns is warranted and it needs parenting somehow. However the one article in the category is a Swedish expatriate - a missionary - for whom the ability to speak the language is unremarkable.  If there were Swedish speaking minorities elsewhere, similar categories might be merited, but often the category would be similar to a normal expatriate or descent category, with the difference that the person had retained their native language, rather than being assimilated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I'm surprised that BHG hasn't nixed this - she usually hates trial balloons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2019 (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:Treaties extended to Kingman Reef

 * 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) 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting treaties extended to kingman reef


 * Nominator's rationale: Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_28. This would be a different story if Kingman Reef had ever been independent or had any population but it's really just a small island of the United States that has no meaningful legal distinction other than be a protected wildlife zone. from the last CfD. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete All of the individual island subcategories of Category:Treaties extended to insular areas of the United States are part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands jurisdiction. (This category still wouldn't be defining there but at least there'd only be one to CFD.) There certainly are some issues with how dependent territories fit in with treaties (like Greenland–European Union relations). But these seem to just throw every treaty signed by the parent country that applies to all jursidictions. We might as well have Treaties extended to Kansas. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support nom -- If we kept anything we might make it into Category:Treaties extended to United States Minor Outlying Islands, but few have any inhabitants, except scientists studying the island. Kingman Reef is not even an island at high tide.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2019 (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:Apple Inc. ex-employees

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Apple Inc. ex-employees to Category:Apple Inc. employees
 * Nominator's rationale: This distinction is redundant. There are no other "ex-employee" categories. The parent "employees" category works perfectly fine for both current and former employees and this category creates ambiguity. Eventually, all members currently in the parent category will also belong to this one. Should Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak be listed in this category? Should it only include those who were "fired"? If anything, perhaps having a "current" employee category would make sense. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 14:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge: I don't even remember what was my idea when creating this in 2015, I don't think I thought it through. :) I guess there wasn't really an established structure for categories back then. Your proposal makes very much sense. This should be merged, along with Category:Apple Inc. people. -- intgr [talk] 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Apple Inc. people makes sense because of Category:People by company and there are some names listed there that aren't technically employees, like Paul Terrell. Either way, should probably get pinged. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge I am opposed to any scheme of categorizing by present status. We shouldn't have Category:Former Prime Ministers of Canada or all of the defunct companies categories. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge We don't usually distinguish between current and former holders of a position. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2019 (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:Populated places established in 1168
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 11%23Category:Populated places established in 1168

Organizations based in East Timor
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23

Category:Portal-Class Canadian comics articles

 * 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:


 * Propose deleting portal-class canadian comics articles


 * Nominator's rationale: This is empty and best I can tell has always been empty. It is unlikely that many or any portals about Canadian comics will be created as they would tend to fail portal guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete with a caveat Only if the category isn't automatically generated by a wikiproject banner. If it is, then keep it and mark how it shouldn't be deleted even if empty. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 4 April 2019 (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:Portuguese discoveries

 * 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. Pinging @ Fayenatic london to ask them to perform the history-preserving merge as described. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Portuguese discoveries to Category:Portuguese exploration in the Age of Discovery
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, we do not have any similar category and the articles in this category are not quite about discoveries - they are biographies and history articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge few if any of the articles are actually Portuguese discoveries; some are explorers but most are about Portuguese colonization etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. Even though there is a lead article Portuguese discoveries, I cannot see how the category is useful at present. There is also a large pt:Categoria:Descobrimentos portugueses in Portuguese Wikipedia, but that has no category corresponding to the parent; hence, only one is needed. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: the target category was created in 2017, splitting it from the nominated category, by user:Zingvin who is now blocked. The nominated category page history should be kept by renaming it over the target, then updating the parent categories etc. I'm willing to do this housekeeping. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:33, 9 April 2019 (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:Wikipedia requested images of computing equipment

 * 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:Wikipedia requested images of computer hardware. MER-C 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia requested images of computing equipment to Category:Wikipedia requested images of computer equipment
 * Nominator's rationale: Seems like two categories for the same thing. Unless I'm missing something.  I don't have a preference on which category name is better. Nessie (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge to "computing", to match parent category. This will be simple enough to implement, adding a "switch" function in Template:Image requested. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Wikipedia requested images of computer hardware per article Computer hardware / Category:Computer hardware.
 * And please do not add switch functions to Template:Image requested. There are zillions of such variations in the requested images tree, and any such switch could become a humungous maintenance nightmare. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough – support BHG's suggestion. Category:Wikipedia requested images of computer equipment is the older category, so its history should be retained by moving that page first. The member pages can be moved easily enough using WP:JWB or similar. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:03, 11 April 2019 (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 who were rejected for the Victoria Cross
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 18%23Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross

Category:Blues Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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) 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Blues Hall of Fame inductees
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Blues Hall of Fame is is a small museum in Nashville. The award is usually mentioned in passing in the articles with other honours in the body of the articles and, if an award is in the intro, it's generally a Grammy. Most of the recipients of this award were prominent long before the Hall of Fame started in 1980. This award doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted similar halls of fame by musical genre here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Convert to Navbox - I know that's not a "standard option", but it would be good to have something more than a list in the article. Is there some way that could be handled by a bot or something? Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In general I'm certainly open to Templates for awards. In this case, it would have 200+ names in it so I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Converting the current static list into a sortable one like this one might be a better use of time. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This is in effect a case of OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – it's just not as exciting as some people think (but then I'm British) – see https://twitter.com/StormHuntley/status/1112344763049615361 . But move the main article up into parent categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:01, 10 April 2019 (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.