Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Category:Broken templates[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Broken templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: If a template is truly "broken", it should be fixed or brought to TfD, rather than placed in a category no one is monitoring. This appears to be used to mean "something is wrong with this template, but what is wrong is not specified", which is not useful in any way to track. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. If a template isn't working, go to the talk page and try to fix it. If no one responds on the talk page then TfD it. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2021 (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:Tercera División RFEF players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Category:Tercera División RFEF players

Category:Segunda División RFEF players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Category:Segunda División RFEF players

Geography of South Georgia (island)[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Geography of South Georgia to Category:Geography of South Georgia (island)

Nominator's rationale: These were proposed on the Speedy page as WP:C2D per South Georgia (island), but was opposed there as unnecessary disambiguation. A full CFD was then held for the "Islands" sub-cat at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Islands_of_South_Georgia; this considered multiple options, and was eventually closed as rename to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island) which was the same as the original Speedy nomination. The rest should now be renamed likewise. If anyone sees fit to propose an alternative, please also nominate the Islands sibling again. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - these were speedies and should not have been opposed in the first place. Oculi (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is no ambiguity about 'South Georgia' as a category heading. Neither of the lands named Georgia is divided into North and South sections, so 'South Georgia' is clear and unambiguous in category terms. The geography etc of South Georgia is a major academic topic, so these are categories of importance. Hogweard (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hogweard. There is no ambiguity in the category names whatsoever. In fact, I question the very premise that South Georgia should be a disambiguation page, and it ended up there after a long series of half-discussed moves. I don't think that the discussion concerning Category:Islands of South Georgia (island) had a proper consensus either, so let's not make the same error here. No such user (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've just started a discussion at Talk:South Georgia (island)#Requested move 12 August 2021 proposing move South Georgia (island) → South Georgia. No such user (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and the article has been moved to South Georgia by unanimous consensus. Can we now please use this CfD to formally move back Category:Islands of South Georgia (island), as the original formal reasons ceased to exist? No such user (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2021 (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.

Bishops of the Church of the East[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 the "Persian bishops" branch to the main "bishops" tree. It seems like there is a general consensus that the "Church of the East" tree is not completely fitting, so the default for the moment should be an upmerge. The out-of-process shift of contents to the "Persian bishops" was a violation of CFD procedures and will be reverted. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1st-century bishops of the Church of the East to Category:1st-century bishops
Propose merging Category:2nd-century bishops of the Church of the East to Category:2nd-century bishops
Propose merging Category:3rd-century bishops of the Church of the East to Category:3rd-century bishops
Propose merging Category:4th-century bishops of the Church of the East to Category:4th-century bishops

Nominator's rationale: merge, the Church of the East was established in 410 so these are anachronistic categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are said to be primates of the Church of the East, although some seem to be legendary. I'm not sure that we can take 410 as the beginning. Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Some retrospective claiming of Primates by the later church was common and largely specious. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not so simple -- The church was not founded in 410 or 431, but arose as a schism in the Eastern (subsequently Orthodox) church. This concerns bishops of a see outside the Roman Empire. According to the article, the Catholikos was first based in Edessa, later in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and finally in Baghdad. It was organised in 410 as the church in the Sasanian Empire, but that does not mean it was created in 410, any more than the Anglican Church was created in c.1531 as something new (as opposed to a reformation, rejecting corrupt practices in the Catholic Church). Suggest merging most to Category:Bishops in Sasanian Empire before 410. That will be anachronistic before about 225, but Category:Bishops in Parthian Empire might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect for the first 4 centuries CE that it is impossible to determine if bishops were located in the Roman or in the Persian Empire. Edessa was clearly Roman, but Seleucia-Ctesiphon was not consistently on one side of the border. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the nominator that these categories make no sense since the "Church of the East" did not exist in the first 4 centuries. But the bishops were presumably "Eastern", so maybe should go into new location / doctrine / church sub-categories of e.g. Category:4th-century bishops such as Category:4th-century bishops in Persia, Category:4th-century Arian bishops. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar it is about Persia, my comment of July 24 still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made categories Category:1st-century Persian bishops, Category:2nd-century Persian bishops, Category:3rd-century Persian bishops and Category:4th-century Persian bishops and moved the pre-Church of the East bishops over to them. Some of them are also in categories like Category:Patriarchs of the Church of the East, which is perhaps debatable, although I suppose it makes sense for the fictional ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert these Persian categories, there is no evidence that they were Persians. In fact Thaddeus of Edessa is believed to have been a Jewish disciple of Jesus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revert these Persian categories per Marco. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:4th-century bishops in Persia? They operated in Persia, if they existed, but certainly were not bishops of the Church of the East. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Were they really operating in Persia? All I know is that they were bishops of Edessa and Seleucia-Ctesiphon respectively. Do you know how the border between the Roman and Persian Empire exactly moved in the course of these four centuries? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seleucia and Ctesiphon, today in Iraq near Baghdad, were in Persia throughout this period. Susa was also Persian, and still is. Edessa was mostly under Roman influence. So perhaps Category:4th-century bishops of Edessa in Category:4th-century bishops in the Roman Empire and Category:4th-century bishops of Susa, Category:4th-century bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the last two in Category:4th-century bishops in Persia. But some of these bishops were just bishops of parts east of the Roman empire, e.g. Saint Mari and Aggai (bishop). They could go direct into Category:4th-century bishops in Persia. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article Ctesiphon says it was captured by the Romans 5 times in this period. If these bishops were anywhere, they were in the Roman-Persian war zone. I am not suggesting renaming the category to "in the Roman-Persian war zone" obviously. Just having the bishops in a century category seems good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The Romans did not hold Ctesiphon, Seleucia or the surrounding country for any length of time. Category:4th-century bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon would naturally belong in Category:4th-century bishops in Persia. Personally, I am comfortable with Category:4th-century Persian bishops in the sense they were bishops of Persian sees, although they could have been ethnic Greeks, Assyrians, etc.. We get the same issue with, e.g., Category:5th-century Frankish bishops, where the bishops were likely to have been Gallo-Roman or perhaps British or Irish rather than Franks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, these categories have been emptied before this discussion has been closed. Sort of defeats the point of having a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 August 2021 (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 interested in America's Army[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in America's Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misnamed single-user category populated solely by a userbox that says "This user is an AAGame player" and whose sole member has not edited for over a year. Categories grouping users by which video games they play are not permissible per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 11 August 2021 (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 interested in Supertuxkart[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in Supertuxkart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category populated solely by a userbox that says "This user plays Supertuxkart". Categories grouping users by which video games they play are not permissible per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing different about this one compared to the other, already deleted "This user plays X" categories.--Alexandra^IDV 16:33, 16 August 2021 (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:Television shows set in Camarillo, California[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Television shows set in Camarillo, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Eric ^talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (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:User ve-4[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:User ve-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is created to reflect one user's language skills. Whiteguru (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Precisely. Just like the thousands of other categories that are also subcats of Category:Wikipedians by language, which we use if translation or foreign language source review are needed. The fact that only one user has that level of skill in that language is irrelevant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2021 (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:User kaa-1[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:User kaa-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for a user page. Whiteguru (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Precisely. Just like the thousands of other categories that are also subcats of Category:Wikipedians by language, which we use if translation or foreign language source review are needed. The fact that only one user has that level of skill in that language is irrelevant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2021 (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:New Zealand country 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: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:New Zealand country musicians to Category:New Zealand country singers

Nominator's rationale: As there are no articles for any other other type of New Zealand country musician, I feel the singer cat is the only one we need. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there's now also a guitarist cat. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 13 August 2021 (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:New Zealand country musicians by instrument[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:New Zealand country musicians by instrument (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcat in here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there's now also a guitarist cat. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is more than has been dreamed up in your philosophy. The question was never do we have articles, but are we likely to have articles. That we actually have articles makes this merger make no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2021 (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:New Zealand country music songs[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:New Zealand country music songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This only contains Keith Urban songs, which I would argue are not in anyway New Zealand songs. They were all recorded in either Australia or New Zealand, and Urban moved out of New Zealand as a toddler and doesn't really consider himself to be a new zealander JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Needs populating rather than deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Urban songs have been removed since they did not belong, but we know have other entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2021 (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.