Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21

Category:Alianza Petrolera footballers

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alianza Petrolera footballers to Category:Alianza Petrolera players

Nominator's rationale: Also all but 7 or so of the other subcategories of Category:Footballers in Colombia by club, for consistency within this hierarchy and in every other country I could see from dipping into random subcats of Category:Association football players by club, including the big one, Category:Footballers in England by club. It looks as if someone created a non-standard cat for Colombia and the pattern was followed for (all but 7) others. PamD 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 11:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. Standard naming convention is for the category to be '[CLUB] players'; there is no need for 'footballers' when the club is a football club, that is a given! There is some inconsistency in category naming for clubs in Spanish/South American countries, but this should be remedied. Giant Snowman 11:34, 22 September 2020 (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:Female United States major party vice presidential nominees

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Female United States major party vice presidential nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We do not typically categorize parties by electoral strength and I see no reason to do so. User:Namiba 14:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Both of the two people filed here (Ferraro and Palin, but not Harris?) are already in Category:Female candidates for Vice President of the United States, and there's no need for a separate category alongside that on the matter of whether the party that nominated them was "major" or "minor". Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "major" is too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge to candidates. "Major" is subjective, but the target category might be limited to those who have been (or will be) on the ballot in a majority of states. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, they are both already in the candidates category.--User:Namiba 15:33, 30 September 2020 (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:Canadian Alliance candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election

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 all Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Although we've been lagging in actually getting these deleted, due to the sheer enormity of the job, CFD has established a consensus against categorizing Canadian political candidates by individual election that they ran in (see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 23#Category:Liberal Party of Canada candidates in the 1867 Canadian federal election, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#Category:New Democratic Party candidates in the 1962 Canadian federal election, etc.) It's overly granular for the level of importance that it entails: firstly, we don't even categorize actual MPs for every separate election that they ran in or every separate sitting of Parliament that they were members of, and there's no reason to categorize losing candidates more specifically than we categorize the winners -- and secondly, since being a candidate isn't actually a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, people only have articles to file here if they have tangential notability for other reasons besides the candidacies per se, thus often making these permanent WP:SMALLCATs. And furthermore, it leads to extreme category bloat as candidates frequently don't only run once, and can instead end up having to be filed in somewhere between two and 100 (I'm not making that up) of these at once. So one category per party is fine, but we don't need to obsessively subcategorize unsuccessful candidates for office this narrowly. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Permanent SMALLCAT should be avoided.--User:Namiba 16:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, while I am not too certain that WP:SMALLCAT applies here, we should definitely avoid category bloat for politicians who candidated multiple times. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally support -- In UK we have a category only for elected MPs for each Parliament. In Canada, the equivalent would probably be for federal and provincial legislatures. The consensus is that failed candidates are NN, unless notable for other reasons. This means that we ought not to have categories for candidates; certainly not multiple ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2020 (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:Games by Miloskvan

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: speedied G3 - part of a string of disruptive edits by User:Sshiorii Grutness...wha? 05:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Games by Miloskvan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be either made up or unsupported by sources. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:08, 21 September 2020 (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.

Contests

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: Option B Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming either:

Option A: use "contests"

Option B: use "competitions"

Category:1926 contests to Category:1926 competitions

74 more by-year categories

Category:1920s contests to Category:1920s competitions

8 more decade cats

Nominator's rationale: to resolve the mismatch between container categories and their contents. The parents use "Competitions", but the by-year cats use "contests".

(The decade categories have just been created by me, using the same format).

I think that the choice comes down to which term is more inclusive, and to my mind that's "contests", which is Option A.

The category series is underdeveloped and underpopulated, but it should include other forms of contest such as elections and awards ... not all of which can be readily described as competitions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support option ~~A. Er, the second one.~~ B. I don't think we should mix competitions with elections; that seems confusing. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰, sorry about my typo. I have now fixed the nomination; you may wish to clarify your !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Those things happen. I just figured referring to an option by its letter in my !vote would be funny in this case. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both A and B improve consistency and are to be preferred over the current mixed setup. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option B - use competitions - Category:Competitions is a perfectly coherent category containing a large number of subcats for a variety of competitions. Contest is a wider term; Category:1926 contests for instance only contains beauty pageants and these are competitions. (Category:Contests by year is a subcat scheme for Category:Contests, which is larger than Category:Competitions.) Oculi (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This confusion has possibly been caused by Category:Song contests, which should probably be renamed to 'competitions' as well, per its parent Category:Singing competitions. Oculi (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option B but purge out all the annual subcategories, most of which only contain categories for beauty pageants. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2020 (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:Neil Hamburger albums

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) 23:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neil Hamburger albums to Category:Gregg Turkington albums

Nominator's rationale: Precedent for both naming categories after the main article and also after the actual artist who performed it (i.e. "Neil Hamburger" is a character of Gregg Turkington). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Can you give an example of another person who has only recorded as a character? The closest that I can think of right now is David Johansen, but he has released albums under his own name and as Buster Poindexter, so there are separate categories for each. Trivialist (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialist, A recent example was Category:Coconut Records (band) albums being moved to Category:Jason Schwartzman albums. Other examples that come to mind are Category:Hannah Montana albums is just the franchise but the character's albums are all in Category:Miley Cyrus albums or how Category:A Silver Mt. Zion albums includes all of their work and there isn't a new category made every time the band changes its name. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toss a coin, but either way create a {{Category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (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:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The mediation cabal no longer exists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 21 September 2020 (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.

Would it be possible to leave the edit history intact? Benjamin (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon missionaries

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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale The heading of the category explicitly says this category is limited to those who served as missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The manual of style we have, and the requests of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself explicitly depricate this use of the term to refer to the Church and its members. I think we should rename all categories, but there are a huge number of categories. So for now these are all I managed to nominate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to simply follow the LDS Church's styleguide link, and while the styleguides of some news organizations have made some accommodations, they stop well short of the widespread purging of the word "Mormon" that is advocated here. Here are some examples of changes the church's styleguide would have us make:

"Mormonism" → "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ"
"LDS Church" → "the restored Church of Jesus Christ", "the Church of Jesus Christ", or "the Church" (capitalized)

Obviously those don't fit with our NPOV policy.

But more importantly, "Mormon missionaries" is the common name. The church's missionaries are widely, almost universally, recognized as that, and the conciseness of that name makes it unlikely to die out in the near future. And up until a couple years ago the church was actively promoting the use and acceptance of the term "Mormon", for example, in its I'm a Mormon ad campaign and its documentary Meet the Mormons.

Another reason I oppose this change is that generations of church members have lived and died while strongly identifying as "Mormons". And there's a large portion of Mormons that may not be active/engaged members of the church, including Inactive Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Jack Mormons, Ex-Mormons, Liberal Mormons, etc. It just feels wrong to retroactively recategorize all these people. I understand it's frustrating not being able to control what people call you, but that's the way this messy world works. I'm an "American", even though that's a sloppy term. The more accurate term ("Citizen of the United States of America") is just too long for casual conversation, something that could also be said about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As noted by the nominator, there are many, many more "Mormon missionary" categories than the number that have been nominated here. See Category:Mormon missionaries and subcategories. Why would we rename these but leave all of the others? I also agree that "Mormon missionaries" is the common name, and it has the added benefit of being a shorter form than using the full name of the LDS Church. I think Awilley illustrates these points well. It may be best to await this RM before taking any action on the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as emphasized by "—widely known as Mormon missionaries—" in the first words of the main article. Also note that the spelling technicalities of using Latter Day Saint for the larger movement and Latter-day Saint for the main Church are cryptic to the common reader. We could benefit from waiting for the result of the ongoing RM. Place Clichy (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Mormon" is the common name, and the other name is overly long for a title. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The target to far too much of a mouthful. If "Mormon" is objectionable, then "LDS missionaries" could be used. However, every LDS (male?) member is expected to spend a period as a missionary as a young adult, almost as a rite of passage, so that this category could be applied to any LDS member, meaning that being an LDS missionary is a NN characteristic of LDS members. Category:Missionaries_(LDS_Church) would also be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not every young male in the church who goes on a mission—it's currently around 30 percent—but your point about whether it is defining is nevertheless a good one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 29 September 2020 (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:Fictional Moroccan Jews

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional Moroccan Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: One-article WP:SMALLCAT. The only entry in Category:Fictional Moroccan people by ethnic or national origin, which in turn is the only subcategory of Category:Fictional Moroccan people. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Do not merge, as it uncertain whether the character ever lived in Morocco. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. The single character in the category is an Israeli character, the link with Morocco is secondary. Place Clichy (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2020 (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:Bedi family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 4#Category:Bedi family