January 2

Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast

• Propose merging Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast to Category:Lists of monuments and memorials

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently only one article and the category can realistically only ever contain max 2 articles (the other being Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-argument. This category has been designed to contain the lists of monuments and memorials for each city/town of Samara Oblast in the future. Here is the list of administrative divisions of the region. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from Tolyatti and Samara the other cities in the oblast are way too small to create a similar list. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Except the mentioned cities, there are another two settlements with more than 100.000 population. Anyway, in my opinion, it’d be better to keep the special category for appropriate articles than merge it to a broader-scope category and make it messier.

P.S. I’m currently organizing the articles within the Category:Lists of monuments and memorials to help us reach them at least by country. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Twilight Zone Guest Appearances

• Propose deleting Category:The Twilight Zone Guest Appearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This fails WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: ... not to mention that it violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE (a person is not an appearance) and WP:CAPS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror. These are just examples; it could also be something much better. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a performer by performance category, which is a classic example of a non-defining category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian Premier League footballers

• Propose renaming Category:Egyptian Premier League footballers to Category:Egyptian Premier League players

Nominator's rationale: Footballers isn't the correct word to use here. Most of the "league players" categories like this one, if not all of them, ends with "players". For example, We have Category:Premier League players, Category:Bundesliga players, Category:Qatar Stars League players, and many other examples; and because of that I believe that this one should match rest of the categories. Ben5218 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a recent discussion about this category was closed as no consensus. @Oculi: pinging the one other participant in the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Players in the Egyptian Premier League as 'Egyptian Premier League players' is ambiguous (Egyptian players in the Premier League being another interpretation). Oculi (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Despite it might actually sounds ambiguous, but most other league with the name "Premier League" has a category with the same name. For example, we have Category:Ukrainian Premier League players, Category:Armenian Premier League players, Category:Kenyan Premier League players and Category:Israeli Premier League players. I believe that Egyptian Premier League players is the most suitable name for this category to the league's article title, and to use the same naming system that all other leagues use. Ben5218 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Occuli to make it clear we are categorizing by the league played in, not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: But that won't match the naming system all other leagues use. Plus, there are already some categories with a similar name like the ones I mentioned above. Don't you think that it would be better if this category's name is changed the naming system all other leagues use? Ben5218 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should rename all those other categories as well. We need precesion in naming categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese-Canadian internment

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese-Canadian internment to Category:Internment of Japanese Canadians

Nominator's rationale: It's not the internment that is Japanese-Canadian, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian-American novels

• Propose renaming Category:Asian-American novels to Category:Novels by Asian-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Chinese-American novels to Category:Novels by Chinese-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Filipino-American novels to Category:Novels by Filipino-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Indian-American novels to Category:Novels by Indian-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese-American novels to Category:Novels by Japanese-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Korean-American novels to Category:Novels by Korean-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Pakistani-American novels to Category:Novels by Pakistani-American authors
• Propose renaming Category:Vietnamese-American novels to Category:Novels by Vietnamese-American authors

Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to make sure it is clear. Although I have my doubts about all of these being actual things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category tracking

Category:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones

• Propose deleting Category:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category created when capacitive touchscreen was a novelty. Now this is expected from any touchscreen device and would require all phones created in the last two decades to be included if we aimed to be complete. uKER (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas

• Propose deleting Category:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category does not fit into any wider battles-won-by category scheme (in fact, this category currently has no parents). Battles are already categorized by date/location/war etc (and various combinations of those) so this categorization is unnecessary. Many battles don't have a clear winner so this isn't a good way to categorize. If anyone thinks we should categorize (all) battles by winner (and loser?) then that should be discussed at WP:MILHIST first. The category could be listified.

If this is not deleted then it should be renamed to use a lower case "i" in indigenous peoples of the Americas and parented. DexDor ^(talk) 07:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: Hello, I created this category. I am all for converting it into a list and also agree with the capitalization change. I created this list because I think it is of high importance.

Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So if we have a battle where the Aztecs defeated the Tlaxcalas, it goes here right? What about a battle where Briths and Iroquois fought French and Potawatomi? This is a very, very problematic way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radom Confederation

• Propose deleting Category:Radom Confederation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only an eponymous article that is already in Category:Polish confederations. The subcategory should be kept but does not need this category as a parent, especially not because there is a direct link to the Radom Confederation article in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, for the record: previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_5#Category:Radom_Confederation ended with no consensus. There were additional articles in the category, as in the Polish Wikipedia, but the nominator stated why they should not be categorised under Radom Confederacy. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churches by city (Spain)

• Propose merging Category:Churches in Alcoy to Category:Buildings and structures in Alcoy‎
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Ávila, Spain to Category:Buildings and structures in Ávila, Spain‎
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Baeza to Category:Baeza
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Barcelona to Category:Buildings and structures in Barcelona‎ and Category:Religion in Barcelona
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Burgos to Category:Buildings and structures in Burgos‎
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Calatayud to Category:Buildings and structures in Calatayud‎
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Córdoba, Andalusia to Category:Buildings and structures in Córdoba, Andalusia‎
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Granada to Category:Buildings and structures in Granada‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 (Roman Catholic) subcategory. There is only one merge target, because the content of every category is already categorized in a Roman Catholic churches category of a region. For example, the article in Category:Churches in Alcoy is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Valencian Community. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all but permit re-creation if lots of Protestant churches suddenly start being constructed in Spain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The issue is not that there are not any non-Catholic Churches in these places. The issue is that by and large these non-Catholic churches are in general not notable. The vast majority of churches are not notable. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prbaobly has over 10,000 Church buildings, of which I would doubt 100 are notable. The same applies for many Evangelical and Baptists Churches, although not quite to as high an extent. In the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this is partly because so much of the worship of the Church is focused on the 161 temples of the church, which are notable. In the case of the unnumbered but probably in excess of 100,000 Pentecostal churches worldwide, it is because so many of them are small congregations numbering in the tens in congregant count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map

• Propose deleting Category:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by articles that have had an external link showing a map of connecting buses in the area. There are endless ways public transport infrastructure articles can be categorised by, but usually it is kept to a fairly high level; Stations in Sydney, Wharves opened in 1923 etc. This category is doing so by features of the article, rather than features of the subject matter, so really an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. JCN217 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template allows users to know which articles have maps without having to look up each individual article.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:X86 Supercomputers

• Propose renaming Category:X86 Supercomputers to Category:x86 supercomputers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Categorization#General conventions, regular nouns are not capitalized. 99Electrons (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American Ivy League academics

• Propose deleting Category:African-American Ivy League academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of its members per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and educational affiliation. General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/WP:CATDEF Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League, the university system of the US, and its historical exclusion of the African-American in not just attendance/matriculation, but in academic study, research and value: (Columbia University JUST literally a few weeks decided to create a department for African and African-American studies, thus opening up a whole new field, industry, research and jobs for this particular group, African-American academics at the Ivy League). Plus with the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race), it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. LumaNatic (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? LumaNatic (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:African-American academics. Category:Ivy League academics is dubious, as is Category:African-American Ivy League alumni. Oculi (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS categories. The two suggested upmerge categories should in no case have any direct content. Academics are connected with a specific school, not an athletic league (that is what the Ivy League is), and should be categorized at Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:Dartmouth College factulty etc. Beyond that, academics should be categorized by their specific field of expertise, and should only in such cases be in ERGS categories if say Category:African-American historians or Category:African-American physicists is justified by the specific ERGS guidelines. In fields where ERGS guidelines do not justify an African-American sub-cat, we should not put people in an undifferentiated academics category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'NOTE: Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices. These are historical, cultural facts, and these categories represent such, as an encyclopedia should. Wikipedia serves no purpose in omitting this.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American Ivy League alumni

• Propose deleting Category:African-American Ivy League alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• ALSO: Category:African-American Ivy League academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Ivy League alum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection of educational affiliation and race. TM 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a defining characteristic of its members, per WP:CATDEF. General Ization ^Talk 03:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per General Ization. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League and the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race) - and the historic exclusion of such a group from the educational system, of which the Ivy League is the pinnacle, it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. ~LumaNatic (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ivy League alum" can become "Ivy League alumni," but as for "AA IL alumni" and "AA IL academics" I state again, as above: these characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians, and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? ~LumaNatic (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's the combination of 'Ivy League' and ethnicity which is a bad idea. Moreover 'Ivy League alumni' was deleted at cfd in 2012. Oculi (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very strong delete We do not subcategorize any alumni by ethnicity. This is a horrible idea and will start a horrible precedent. There is a much stronger argument to have Category:Jewish Ivy League alumni because of the anti-Jewish quota system. Also considering the current admission practices of the Ivy League, Category:Asian and Asian-American Ivy League alumni would highlight the group most distriminated against in current admission practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Abandon the play at oppression olympics. All of these groups have been systemically and institutionally excluded from education in the US, and the western education system at large, and thus Wikipedia should reflect these historical (and present day) discrimination if it is to be an accurate encyclopedia. Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]