Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 7



Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament

 * 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: do not split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament to Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by century, by parliament and Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by dynasty, by parliament
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not very experienced at category discussions, so please feel free to help me out if I've messed this up. My proposal is to split the current category into a category that keeps the century groupings, and a new category that sets up dynasty groupings, with monarch groupings under each appropriate dynasty. Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and setup examples of what I'm suggesting at Category:English MPs of the Tudor period‎ and Category:English MPs of the Stuart period‎.
 * Per the previous discussions (here and here) on organizing the Parliaments of England]] I think it's clear there are two good ways to organize the parliaments of England, and they both have their own uses. Parliaments obviously occur in a given century (or are at least all seated in a given century), and there's a reason to look at all the parliaments that occur in a time frame. At the same time, Parliaments of England were typically called by the reigning monarch, and so a parliament may span two centuries. The monarchs themselves can be grouped by dynasty (as per my examples above). I would like to thank Peterkingiron for proposing the idea of retaining the century grouping while also establishing a parallel grouping by "ruling dynasty >> monarch" in one of the previous discussions I linked. Furicorn (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no need for a "split".  This is a subcategorisation proposal, and the subcats have already been created. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not that experienced with this - do I need to do something different for a subcategorization proposal, or propose it somewhere else? Any advice or help is appreciated. -Furicorn (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Furicorn, I think you have already done it. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean I've setup some subcats (obviously there are several more dynasties to cover), but I am proposing that all the by century groupings should live in their own subcat, and all the by dynasty groupings should live in a different subcat. As I'm browsing I think this also suggests a by Dynasty or by Ruler category parallel to Category:English parliaments by century. -Furicorn (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Furicorn, I don't see any need for separate century and dynasty containers. How many dynasties are there? I think it's only about 7. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the two subcategorization schemes can easily sit together in one container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename instead to Category:Members of English Parliament by period. This is a container for a few categories and should be tagged as a container.  The fact that it is limited to pre-1707 can be covered in a headnote.  The date 1707 is less significant than some WP users seem to imagine.  The English Parliament did not cease to exist, nor was it dissolved so that a General Election could be held following the Union with Scotland.  What happened was that exactly the same Parliament continued, much as it always had, except that it admitted Scottish members.  We need to resist the desire of some WP users to split and re-split, each time making category names longer; and contributing to Category Clutter.  If this was not a container, I would have suggested something even shorter.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Just N. (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2021 (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:TMenang

 * 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) 02:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tmenang
 * Nominator's rationale: Category created by a user about themselves, not helpful DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The only page contained in this category was a user page which I removed so it's empty now. We don't allow categories editors create just for themselves and their user pages. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Possible G6 speedy candidate. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:12, 15 April 2021 (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:Pinocchio (Disney version)

 * 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) 02:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Pinocchio (Disney version) to Category:Pinocchio (1940 film)
 * Nominator's rationale: The two categories cover the same content. The merge is in this direction due to categories like Category:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film). (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Pinocchio has not inspired multiple sequels or spin-offs. The Disney version is limited to a single film and a couple of comics adaptations. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as duplicate category. I have checked the parent categories and confirm that no further work is required. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (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:French Ministers for Work and Social Security

 * 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) 02:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:French Ministers for Work and Social Security to Category:French Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs
 * Nominator's rationale: Wrong translation. The French name of this ministry changed many times since a Labour Ministry (Ministère du Travail) was first created in 1906, often being called the Social Affairs Ministry (Ministère des Affaires sociales), but the usual English translation of this office is never, it seems, Minister for Work, for any country. Note that mostly uses French Ministers of Foo. Place Clichy (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Fadesga (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree "Labour" is more appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Renameper nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (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:Symbols of Tennessee

 * 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 (selectively merging articles to, as suggested). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting symbols of tennessee
 * Nominator's rationale: Being a state symbol is not a defining feature of most of these pages, except for the obvious ones which don't need a category. There is a perfectly good List of Tennessee state symbols article should readers want to know about them. As such, I see no reason for this category to exist. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Selectively Upmerge 2 Articles/Delete List of Tennessee state symbols and Seal of Tennessee should be selectively upmerged to Category:Tennessee culture in order to keep them in the Tennessee category tree. The Eastern box turtle and Iris (plant) are not remotely defined by being named a state reptile or state flower and this is a broad problem with the whole Category:United States symbols by state tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose - this is the way most of Category:United States symbols by state (and indeed much of Category:Symbols by location has been scoped for quite some time, it's just that the Tennessee category was recently brought into alignment with everything else. I rather agree that this runs afoul of WP:DEFINING in most cases, but all the categories should be discussed as a group. Ibadibam (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we can ask a very narrow question here: is the Smallmouth bass which lives across much of North America defined by being the official fish of Tennessee? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete for most of the content being a "symbol" of Tennessee is not defining to it. This is the type of thing that works as a list. It does not work as a category, because most of the things involved are not defined by this trait at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (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:Biscuits (British style)

 * 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) 02:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Biscuits (British style) to Category:Biscuits
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Biscuits. The only member of that category that doesn't fall into this one is Biscuit (bread) itself, which belongs in Category:Quick breads. The "British style" disambiguator seems to be confusing people into thinking that the category is for "biscuits from Britain" rather than "biscuits that are not the bread kind". Note that the majority of pages in Category:Biscuits are biscuits from places outside the Anglosphere. Also see the oldest comment on Category talk:Biscuits (British style). Ibadibam (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. That's the way the cookie crumbles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No need for redundant categories. Spudlace (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a clear move to try to impose British English on the whole project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Service Merit

 * 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) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Service Merit
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and likely WP:PERFCAT)
 * South Korea issues the Order of Service Merit to postal workers, private school teachers, and public servants to thank them for their service and the award is likely defining for those non-notable recipients. The 5 articles in this category look very different though: American General Wallace M. Greene, American Lt. General Victor H. Krulak, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Thanat Khoman, Korean infectious disease expert Dr. Park Seung-cheol, and Korean Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon are not remotely defined by this award. The category contents are now all listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete more category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Service

 * 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) 02:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Service
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Order of Service is an Iranian award for either "accomplishing responsibility and servitude" or aiding the oppressed. In practice, this award is given to high ranking Iranian politicians who already very prominent: 14 of the 17 articles are somewhere under Category:Iranian politicians. The 3 exceptions are high ranking goverment employees: nuclear negotiator Abdolrasoul Dorri-Esfahani, nuclear program official Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and ambassador Gholamhossein Mohammadnia who are already well categorized and don't seem defined by the award. The category contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. The fact that its recipients are in senior positions is immaterial. So are most people knighted by the British Crown; that doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't categorise them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles do not bother to explain what the achievement actually was. It is left to the reader to imagine that the "achievement" was a nice career as a politician or a civil servant. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet our extremely narrow inclusion criteria for awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (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.