Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 27

June 27[edit]

Category:Circassia[edit]

Propose merging Category:Circassia to Category:Circassians

Nominator's rationale: This newly created uncategorized category seems redundant with Category:Circassians. Gjs238 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Circassian history. We do not have that category yet and it nicely fits the current content of this category. If not renamed, then merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjs238: what do you think of the rename alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning toward using the scheme used at Category:Circassia - Wikimedia Commons (Circassia>Circassians>Circassian people) Gjs238 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Circassian history. --Aldij (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) blocked sock Queen of Hearts ^talk 04:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, Use scheme used at Category:Circassia - Wikimedia Commons (Circassia>Circassians>Circassian people) Gjs238 (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving ancient peoples[edit]

Propose merging Category:Battles involving ancient peoples to Category:Battles of antiquity
- Added on relisting:
- Propose renaming Category:Battles involving peoples to Category:Battles by peoples involved
- Propose renaming Category:Wars involving peoples to Category:Wars by peoples involved

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Purge grandparent I think all children of Category:Battles involving ancient peoples should be Purged out of grandparent Category:Battles of antiquity, as they are already in Category:Battles involving ancient peoples. That category exists as part of the Category:Battles involving peoples tree, and to prevent overpopulation in Category:Battles of antiquity. The latter still needs to happen; in that sense nom has a good point. NLeeuw (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Battles of antiquity contains a hodgepodge of battles subcategories anyway: by empires, by dynasties, by a period, by a source. Why would we just keep peoples separate? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I argued, as a subcategory of Category:Battles involving peoples, and as a subcategory of Category:Battles of antiquity; (and as a subcategory of Category:Ancient peoples). If this is an unhelpful intersection, you might convince me it's better to upmerge. E.g. one problem with it that I have is that Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples may be considered "ancient" in the sense of the Germanic peoples being ancient, but it has subcategories like Category:Battles involving the Lombards and Category:Battles involving the Vikings on account of the Lombards and Vikings being "Germanic", even though especially the latter are not "ancient" at all, but wholly medieval (Vikings appear no earlier than the 8th century, see Viking Age). And as we confirmed last year, the scope of Category:Germanic people by century is "before 1200". So I'm thinking Germanic peoples should not be categorised as "ancient" if we allow them to be early and high medieval as well. But that's a problem that can be solved by simply purging Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples out of both the nominated and target category, and only including those subcategories that are exclusively "ancient". (Upmerging will not solve the issue.) Other than that, I regard the nominee as useful for navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples as well if that helps. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It does, but... I wish I could agree with your proposal, but I don't see how it improves navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Battles by ancient peoples involved. Relist adding Category:Battles involving peoples to Category:Battles by peoples involved, and Category:Wars involving peoples to Category:Wars by peoples involved. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not merged, then certainly rename. This is meant to be a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician films[edit]

Propose merging Category:Galician films to Category:Galician-language films

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant? Gjs238 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish films" is not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are several different categories (Category:Irish films by language). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, articles are already in Category:Galician-language films if applicable, but it is not always applicable. Some of these films are Spanish-speaking. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete insofar there seems to be no intent to connect category to cogent production criteria pertaining the Galician regional film industry (possibly not easy for most Wikipedia users to crack at the subnational level anyways), but to a moot "Galician context", category is not really useful pursuant to the current existence of Category:Galician-language films and Category:Films set in Galicia (Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Take Midsummer Dream it's a Galician film in English and Spanish (not to mention the fact that some films in Galician are not Galician films, just like many films in English are not English films or films in Tamil are not all made in Tamil Nadu). See Category:Catalan films, a very similar category, that exists and does not only contain films in Catalan. (But the category needs cleanup).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: per WP:OTHERSTUFF, Category:Catalan films should also be deleted because Category:Catalan-language films already exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. (and my !vote has nothing to do with the WP:ATA you mention, btw). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mushy Yank. Only 4 out of 12 films in this category are only in Galician, or in both Galician and Spanish, according to their infoboxes: The Apostle (2012 film), Fire Will Come, Matria, The Rye Horn. The rest seem to be films "made in Galicia", but not "spoken in Galician". (Sidenote: this also means certain films in Category:Galician-language films should be Purged, since they are in Spanish and / or English, not Galician).

At the moment I do not have an opinion on whether we should have categories for films by autonomous community of Spain, but assuming we will keep them, it is desirable that we make these catnames less ambiguous. The comparison with Catalan and Catalan-language films also shows this.

We could develop a new convention like Films in Fooian (see the recent Songs in Fooian precedents) versus Films from Fooland (see the recent People from Fooland precedents), but such a decision would have broad implications for our current category structures. Nevertheless, given how often ambiguous adjectives like "Galician" lead to confusion, and recent precedents have developed solutions to avoid such confusion, this seems the best way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes(ses) by country[edit]

Speedy Cfd discussion

@Omnis Scientia: shouldn't the standard be the other way around? These seem to be about princes and princesses of a country indeed, in contrast to "barons of" categories which you nominated at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I'm not fully sure. The naming is uneven in all these categories. But for princes and princesses, I would say "Fooian princes" is the better form since there are also sovereign princes such as the Prince of Monaco and many more throughout history. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't move this one to full Cfd since majority were already "Fooian princes(ses)" so C2C applied here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of "prince" in Prince of Monaco is quite exceptional, in contrast to the usage of the word "prince" as "male member of the family of the monarch". In both cases they are princes of a country though. What otherwise would they be a prince of. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, would you be is favor of taking it to full Cfd? Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: yes, but I will only support a reverse rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way is fine by me but I'll move it to full and then we can speedy the rest. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: So we have two options here: Option A: "Fooian princes(ses)"; or Option B: "Princes(ses) of Foo". Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Marcocapelle from the speedy Cfd discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFBB, you can choose the options here. Then the rest of the categories in Category:Princes by country and Category:Princesses by country can be speedied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly prefer B for accuracy. When you read "Montenegrin princesses" literally then the category could also contain someone born in Montenegro, not as a princess, who marries a Spanish prince. But the intention of the category (inasfar as it concerns marriages) is people from anywhere in the world who marry a Montenegrin prince. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This a hard one. First, both categorizations are not equivalent. German princess is not the same a princess in Germany. E.g. Marie Antoinette was the princess consort of France, but she was not French but German (as any other subject of the HRE; Austrian was not considered a nationality back then). The previous example shows how difficult is to work with nationalities, especially as our understanding of nationalities has changed over time. On the other side, the categorization based on current countries is also problematic. What do we do princesses of Prussia? (no longer in Germany) or princesses of Bohemia? (Czechia? Germany? Austria?). I think this is quite close to WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. I think that the healthiest categorization would be Prince of Entity e.g. Prince of Bohemia, Princess of the Two Sicilies, Prince of Spain, etc. (even if the entity does no longer exist). Every other option just sounds very problematic to me and poised to miscategorization.SFBB (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SFBB, I agree. This one is a bit difficult given how many such places there in Europe alone. @Marcocapelle, any thoughts on SFBB's suggestion? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Omnis Scientia: I understood User:SFBB's comments as straightforward support for option B. Did you understand this differently? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle, I understood they support Option B and, from my understanding, to create a category for each of the places, most of which already exist. But the other half is what about sovereign princes(ses)? Should there being seperate subcat for that to avoid confusion with princes(ses) of an entity? Or leave it be? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Omnis Scientia: got you now. Sovereigns with the explicit title of prince(ss) do not occur frequently, I think we can solve that on a case to case basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer option B. Princes(ses) of Foo simply makes the most sense and is the most appropriate categorization scheme from my point of view. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Option B right now (as the categories currently are) is organized as Princes of (current country) or Princesses in (current country). This is wrong as in many case it's not possible to construct a parallel between a current country and the historical entity, the people belonged to. For instance, Mozart was a subject of the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg, which was part of the HRE (and not of the Duchy of Austria or anything related to Austria). Subjects of the HRE were considered (and considered themselves) as Germans and never as Austrians (well...except of the subject of Austria proper). The only reason for Mozart beign considered an Austrian is that later (after Mozart's death), Salzburg was annexed by Austria. However, we usually find Mozart to be categorized as Austrian (just check the article), whereas the only historically valid categorizations would be Salburg/Salzburgian and HRE/German.

While I indeed prefer something like Option B, it should be something like Princes of (historical entity) or Princesses in (historical entity) (and by historical entity I also include current countries, e.g. UK, Denmark or Liechtenstein, but it also allows things like Bohemia - instead of Czechia -, Hanover - instead of Germany -, Aragon (as a parallel to Castile, instead of Spain), or the Brazilian Empire (instead of Brazil). Otherwise, we're making the exact same mistake that is described in WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.SFBB (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with SFBB but this is probably a matter of follow-up nominations and/or creating new categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcocapelle: Maybe. And maybe most of the categories here are OK with Option B (e.g. Category:Princesses of Poland, Category:Princesses of Luxembourg, Category:Princesses of Liechtenstein, etc.), but things such as Category:Princesses in Germany (note that given the historical understanding we should classify Category:Princesses of Liechtenstein here too, or even Category:Princes of Austria) or Category:Princes in Italy should definitely be deleted. Also Category:Princes of Greece or Category:Princes of the Netherlands are quite bad. OK. Princes of the Netherlands is OK for princes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which should be the name of the category), but here you also have William the Silent who was definitely a prince of Orange-Nassau, and Stadtholder (regent) of the Dutch Republic, but certainly not a Prince of the Netherlands (not even close; it was a republic back then). Let alone having all Category:Princes of Bourbon-Parma inside the same category...as I said...it does not make sense. We're trying to tie current countries to historial entities that do no longer exist. Regarding this request, I'd say

Option B for all currently existing and/of well-defined monarchies (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, etc) .
Delete all ill-defined cases: Germany (move whatever possible to German Empire), Italy (move whatever possible to Kingdom of Italy), the Netherlands (move whatever possible to Kingdom of the Netherlands), and Greece (move whatever possible to Kingdom of Greece)
Difficult cases (e.g. Poland, probably including the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Kingdom of Poland, and Congress Poland) would require special attention.
In general: completely revise all these categories (not only the ones listed here). SFBB (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: I just checked and the Greek case seems to be properly defined based on the Kingdom of Greece (I was afraid, I would also contain all kingdoms of Ancient Greece). SFBB (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By and large we still agree. I don't think we really need to rename to Princes of the Kingdom of, but we should definitely purge articles (e.g. William of Orange) and recategorize. For the latter, there should be a follow-up split proposal especially for Germany and Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegiant Stadium[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Allegiant Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations". User:Namiba 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hector Guimard[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Hector Guimard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All related articles are contained in a "works by" category so there is no need for an eponymous parent category as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gospel record labels in Nigeria[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Gospel record labels in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category. Category:Gospel music record labels not subcategorized by country. Gjs238 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to upmerge since the lone article is already in Category:Gospel music record labels and Category:Nigerian record labels. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]