Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

Category:Film templates parameter issues[edit]

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: split as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here that needs to be fixed" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category trees of Template parameter issues by task and Template parameter issues by topic (which includes the nominated category Category:Film templates parameter issues) created by me in 2022 are named this way because of the original category Wikipedia template parameter issues. I too, at some point in this process, realized that some relevant categories are just for tracking/awareness, not for fixing issues. I wouldn't mind renaming the whole category tree into Wikipedia template tracking categories, Template tracking categories by task, and so on.
An alternative would be to make it an additional structure on top: Wikipedia template tracking categories could be the parent of Wikipedia template parameter issues, Template tracking categories by topic – parent of Template parameter issues by topic, and so forth. What do you think?
This is a much larger scope than the original nomination, let me know if you want to limit the discussion here to just the film-related categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 200#PetScan or DB query for categories exclusively in Category:Hidden categories and Category:Tracking categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to ping Bearcat. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't being force-transcluded onto its contents via a template, but is just being generically declared as a conventional category declaration, so I'm not sure I see why this is a larger issue. We can just move things out of the category and up to the parent if they're not tracking issues, while leaving things that are tracking issues here, so I really don't grasp why we would need to complicate things by widening the net. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I support splitting and withdraw my proposal for expanding this nomination. I will wait until this nomination closes and try to implement Category:Template tracking categories by topic after that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:American buskers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:American buskers

Category:Climbing books[edit]

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:Climbing and mountaineering books. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We should merge 'Climbing books' with 'Mountaineering books' to create 'Climbing and Mountaineering books' (as we have done with some other climbing and mountaineering categories like 'List of climbers and mountaineers'). It is not always appropriate to merge 'climbing' and 'mountaineering' but in this case it is not useful to split them as too many of the books include both topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Mountaineering books too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This was closed (with the right result imho), but the existing old categories of Category:Climbing books and Category:Mountaineering books remain (with their CfD tags). Do we 'rediredct' them to the new Category:Climbing and mountaineering books or are the deleted? thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, they are listed on WT:CFDW and will be handled by admins there. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for the quick reply. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bot merged Category:Mountaineering books into the newly created Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, but it didn't also carry out the second part which is the merger of Category:Climbing books into Category:Climbing and mountaineering book? Can this be fixed. Thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that will be processed shortly. In such cases, the bot needs to process the work in stages – if a merge and a rename to the same target are listed at the same time, it is coded to ignore both instructions. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

Category:Cornish people by descent[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Brazilian cuisine by region[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sikh military[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the Sikh Empire is a different state than the Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
      At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
      The Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the Battle of Rohilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this follow up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Category:Sikh warriors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sikh warriors[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Because what I am seeing is an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by religion tree
Category:People by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:Military personnel by nationality > Category:Warriors by nationality > Category:Indian warriors > Category:Sikh warriors
Category:People by religion > Category:People by religion and nationality > Category:Sikhs by nationality > Category:Indian Sikhs > Category:Sikh warriors
Even the Category:People by ethnicity tree is mixed up in it because of parent Category:Punjabi people, but that could easily be Purged.
The word "Sikh" thus acquires a double meaning, namely adherents of Sikhism and subjects of the Sikh Empire or Sikh Confederacy. As you noted, The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora. Therefore, the current name is ambiguous. The renaming proposal will not resolve that ambiguity. If we are to identify them with the Sikh Empire as you mentioned in the rationale, then we should alt rename to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire. This would be in line with my proposal A to rename the parent Category:Sikh military to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire, with possibly a separate category for Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy. NLeeuw (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh I see you already created Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire as a subcategory of Category:Sikh warriors 3 days ago. Shall we also create Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy and diffuse the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
If confederacies / confederations do not have military personnel, how come we've got: Category:Confederate States of America military personnel, Category:Swiss military personnel by century before 1848 (when Switzerland transformed from a confederation to a federation) etc.? Besides, there is an article about Dal Khalsa (Sikh Army). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Category:16th-century Swiss military personnel is vague enough about how the military is organized, just like Category:Sikh warriors. It is not Category:16th-century military personnel of the Swiss Confederacy. On the other hand the Confederate States of America never seem to have had separate armies per state. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh military.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Battles of the Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now without prejudice. Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky indicates that this category could include up to 8 articles, but only 3 of them have been written so far, and they are fine to leave in the parent category for now. NLeeuw (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: An argument could be made to merge Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky to Template:Campaignbox Khmelnytsky Uprising for now as well, but that's beyond the scope of CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes

Category: Willesden Cemetery[edit]

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: Speedy delete under G7. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:Australian business executives by industry[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Mason (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:Australian mining entrepreneurs[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. Also there's no Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant) Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive. JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent - closer examination - the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess. JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the content of this category is a conflation anyway, with many articles about upper management level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_5&oldid=1224633523"