Trichome

thcscience_admin
< April 13
April 15 >

April 14[edit]

Category:2011 Texas wildfires[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:Wildfires in Texas and Category:2011 in Texas and Category:2011 wildfires in the United States. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, isolated 2-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2023 (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:Brand names that end with a +[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: delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure we need this Qwv (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2023 (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:Scandinavian musicians[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: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this really needed for three countries? The subcats can just as easily be found in Category:European musicians and there is not a scheme for "Scandinavian people by occupation". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:59, 14 April 2023 (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:Misogynists[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: delete and salt. A list can be created if there's significant coverage. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not every personality trait or opinion needs to be categorised for. ★Trekker (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic for the one article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above rationale. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Andrew Tate is a self-described misogynist and I added him to the category. I assume there are others who embrace the term.--User:Namiba 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete and salt — this is not how we use categories in our BLPs, for the same reason we don't have a "Racists" category (actually, we did, and it was deleted 6 times in less than two years, then salted). DFlhb (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:SIGCOV. Namiba has some valid points about "self-described misogynists" / "self-identified misogynists", but when I googled "self-described misogynists", 110 out of 117 search results were about Tate. It seems like it has become kind of a fad to attribute the word "self-described misogynist" to him, which may be a very valid thing to do (and with which I would personally agree), and would be valid to mention in his BLP, but this doesn't provide us WP:SIGCOV for a category (yet). Likewise, "self-identified misogynists" has some coverage in scholarly works on Google Scholar and Google Books, but probably not enough (yet) to make it into a Wikipedia category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You should familiarize yourself with the multiple CfD precedents that Category:Racist people is not an acceptable category. Aside from the BLP concerns, there were concerns that the label of people as racist is ill-defined. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per above. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. I suggest a List of people who self-defined as misogynists, if that this is such an important thing. As usual for contentious subjects, a list article allows to put all the nuance and sources that a black-or-white category label does not allow. Place Clichy (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support listification if there is WP:SIGCOV. It's better than categorisation without context or evidence. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2023 (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.

Kim Il-sung[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 rename. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Special:PermanentLink/1149753649#Requested_move_6_April_2023. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:30, 14 April 2023 (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:Young British Artists[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: Keep and feel free to create the proposed targets as subcats at editorial discretion. - jc37 10:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Believe this should be two categories, one containing people per WP:COP, one containing the works, open to suggestions how this should be named though. --woodensuperman 09:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing category as is. No objection to creation of a sub-category for works, but is the category so large that that is needed? And what will you do with things that are neither people nor works, such as the exhibitions? The main problem here is not the name or size of the category, but the contents, which need some informed attention – "Young British Artists" does not mean "young artists from Britain". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the size of the category, per WP:SEPARATE we should "Keep people categories separate: categories with a title indicating that the contents are people should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article, though this can also be added in a text note at the top of the category. This is for clarity and ease of use, and to preserve the integrity of trees of people articles." --woodensuperman 10:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, that makes sense. What do you think aboout the naming of the category/ies? --woodensuperman 15:23, 14 April 2023 (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:Etymologies of names of country subdivisions[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: upmerge and delete. bibliomaniac15 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Content already in Category:Lists of place name etymologies.
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi (User:ChemTerm), who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kestenbaum, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Place Clichy, RevelationDirect, and SilverStar54:: currently active participants in previous discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2023 (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:Association football defenders[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 all Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category names should be aligned per the outcome of this RfC, thus matching Category:Women's association football players by position. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2023 (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:1716 disasters in the Ottoman Empire[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 and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Unnecessary layers for 1 article. The lone article is already in Category:1716 disasters and Category:1716 in the Ottoman Empire so no additional merging is needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2023 (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:Rulers of the Habsburg Netherlands[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: delete. bibliomaniac15 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. First, there was no dynastic title with "Netherlands" in it, let alone "Habsburg Netherlands". The people in question were all Duke of Luxemburg, Guelders, Brabant etc. Count of Flanders, Holland, Hainaut etc. Lord of Groningen, Friesland, Utrecht etc. Being a "ruler" of the Netherlands was just a combo of having all those dynastic titles. The only thing that might have come close was the informal title of "Sovereign of the Netherlands", or the historiographic term "Lord of the Netherlands", neither of which had any legal validity. This has everything to do with the fact that nobody can agree on the periodisation of "Burgundian Netherlands" versus "Habsburg Netherlands" versus "Spanish Netherlands" versus "Austrian Netherlands", but technically, they were all Habsburg from 1477 onwards. Second, why only these 4? Why not Isabella Clara Eugenia, Albert VII, Archduke of Austria, Philip III of Spain etc? Even Mary of Burgundy might qualify as a Duchess regnant married to Maximilian of Habsburg. All of this is just WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that "rulers" is also too vague. It might fail to distinguish the dynastic monarchs of Habsburg (usually somewhat anachronistically referred to as the "kings of Spain") from the Category:Governors of the Habsburg Netherlands and the stadtholders of the provinces, which were filled by nobility, but were non-hereditary positions (at least, originally; the stadtholderate in the Dutch Republic would eventually become hereditary in the 17th century, but I digress). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It appears I created this category myself several years ago. It could be further populated, hypothetically, but that would merely duplicate the kings of Spain. The governors category is far more useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, we should definitely keep the governors cat. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're at it, I myself should confess that when I saw this category, I initially thought it should be renamed "Lords of the Netherlands". Because I've often seen this phrase thrown around in popular history books. But then I stopped myself and wondered if I had ever seen it in a primary source, or a scholarly source. I went throught the entire Internet looking for sources in French and Latin (including my own home-made translations of the Transaction of Augsburg of 1548 and the s:en:Translation:Pragmatic Sanction of 1549), but I found... nothing. It's just a shorthand informal title for his long list of actual titles, but has grown into a quasi-title in popular history books.
    It's similar to the problem of finding any sort of agreement on which "17" provinces the so-called Seventeen Provinces even were. Like many people, I originally had this uninformed idea that this group of 17 was somewhat "sacred", the lost unity of our country, torn apart by the Eighty Years' War. But there never was much unity to begin with, and if there was, it wasn't for long. Guelders and Zutphen were added only in 1543, forged ad hoc into this conglomerate of polities in 1548/9, and just 32 years later, they were amongst the provinces declaring themselves independent from the Habsburgs in 1581. I just don't get it when people regard the Seventeen Provinces as if it should be our historical-geographic frame of reference. Anyway, I digress (as usual, I'm sorry). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, and in broader perspective the whole historiographic idea of a common history of the Low Lands does not make any sense. Frisia and Hainaut only share two very brief and very separated periods of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Lowlands exists! ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Rulers in the Low Countries to match a number of recent noms. "rulers" is certainly vague, but it is highly appropriate since the people in question owned the territory as Duke of Burgundy or of Brabant, Count of Holland, etc. It should probably largely be a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance so far 4 Delete (myself included), 1 Merge. Not sure why this hasn't been closed yet, there has been a clear 4-to-1 majority for a month. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2023 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_14

Leave a Reply