From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

Category:Protostomes in popular culture

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. Participation to this particular discussion is low, but other protostomes categories have been upmerged before for the same reason. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories form an unnecessary complicating layer between arthropods, molluscs etc and invertebrates/animals (all of which are better known terms to non-specialists). DexDor (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Or perhaps the 1st category should be upmerged to Category:Animals in popular culture (the current categorization of p below i is inconsistent with Category:Invertebrates of Europe which has i below p - which demonstrates a problem with using obscure/jargon terms). Is there a zoologist here who can clarify which it should be? DexDor (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC) On investigation p below i is correct - the i-of-e category had been miscategorized (by a now-blocked editor). DexDor (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2018 (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:Jain monks by nationality

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) 06:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: At present this only has one subcategory, and it is therefore an unnecessary layer. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 5 June 2018 (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:Footballers of Iranian descent

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 10:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: as with the nomination bellow, this category as well seems to be a trivial intersection of ethnicity with profession. I could understand it if there were Iranian international footballers born outside Iran, but there are many in this category that just happen to be footballers of Iranian descent. Also there are a few articles in this category which are ethnically Kurdish, who are ethnically different from Iranians. This category therefore looks rather trivial and unneeded. Inter&anthro ( talk) 11:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous consensus. Govvy ( talk) 12:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Same comments as below, really. It seems to be over-categorising and precedent has been set in the earlier discussion. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 13:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. S.A. Julio ( talk) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & my stated views on the Brazilian category: "I admit a strong dislike of "descent" categories as non-defining generally and subjective (how much - a one drop rule? - or how far in the past may descent be to be categorized); this further subcategorization is just more weight further out on the limb well past the breaking point." Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous discussion. Matthew_hk t c 06:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete -- How does this differ from "Iranian expatriate footballers"? In principle this is an adequately populated category, but suspect it to be a duplicate. We should not be using "descent" categories for the first generation emigrants. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 10 June 2018 (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:Footballers of Armenian descent

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 10:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: there seems to be a consensus on the wikiproject against categories grouping footballers by their ethnic origins unless relevant in someway to their careers. In this category in question the all the articles are already in Category:Iranian Armenian people and most are in Category:Ethnic Armenian sportspeople. This category therefore looks rather trivial and unneeded. Inter&anthro ( talk) 11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, see also this recent CFD discussion. Giant Snowman 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous consensus. Govvy ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would say this is over-categorising and the principle has in any event been discussed previously, setting a precedent. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. S.A. Julio ( talk) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & my views on the Brazilian category: "I admit a strong dislike of "descent" categories as non-defining generally and subjective (how much - a one drop rule? - or how far in the past may descent be to be categorized); this further subcategorization is just more weight further out on the limb well past the breaking point." Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous discussion. Matthew_hk t c 06:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete -- How does this differ from "Armenian expatriate footballers"? In principle this is an adequately populated category, but suspect it to be a duplicate. We should not be using "descent" categories for the first generation emigrants. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2018 (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:Aegean civilizations

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering 23:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think the current title is too generic because Aegean civilisation began in the Neolithic and continues to the present day. The stated scope of this category is Bronze Age so I think that term needs to be in the title to remove ambiguity. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 07:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning oppose. I don't think I've often heard of post-Bronze Age civilizations in the Aegean referred to as "Aegean civilizations". We don't generally refer to post-classical nations as "civilizations" in the first place; it would seem odd referring to "the Turkish civilization". And the number of groups that could be considered "Aegean" in any respect since classical antiquity is rather limited: the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, modern Greece. But I don't know that we'd normally refer to any of them as distinct "civilizations", and while they controlled parts of the Aegean, I doubt we would use that adjective to describe them. As far as I know, the term "Aegean civilization" really is only applied to civilizations that are known primarily from the Aegean of the Bronze Age, so this seems like an unnecessary narrowing of a category, the scope of which is already well-understood. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
That's fair comment, P Aculeius. I'm thinking more about the general reader, though, who might not appreciate that the term is specifically Bronze Age. It's really a question of whether the title should be academically correct or if it should say a little more for the sake of clarity. It depends on site preference and, to be honest, I'd be happy either way. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 13:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Bronze Age Aegean or similar, which I hope side-steps the valid issues raised above. Johnbod ( talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep unless the main article Aegean civilizations is renamed. I would not expect a serious risk of confusion about the scope of the category in this case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nomination withdrawn. After further thought, I think the current name should stand. I particularly agree with Marcocapelle that it should reflect the main article's title. Sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 15:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • REname -- The content is Minoan, Mycenean, etc period, which were Bronze Age civilisations. Aegean civilizations ought to refer to all periods, including classical, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman. My preference would be Category:Bronze Age Aegean civilisations. The second article in the category is currently subject to AFD, being a 1911-article that has become very dated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends

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: no consensus ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I have reviewed past related discussions on this and I am not convinced at all this category should be retained. First: many years after its creation, it remains the sole category of its type, no other 'wives and gf's type of category has been created for other sportmen or celebrities in general (despite WAGs concept being broader than just football). This is a red flag suggesting this was a bad idea in the first place. Second, the category notes "Only articles about those for whom this is/was a defining characteristic should be placed in this category." I've reviewed several articles, and very few, if any, have to default to this gossipy/trivial requirement. The dozen or so articles are reviewed would be notable for other reasons (career, awards, etc.). This is, in essence, a unique 'family relationship' type of category, and a very specific one at at that. We don't have categories for "sons and daughters of politicians" or "husbands of celebrities" or "wives and girlfriends of astronausts" or "siblings of aristocracy" whatever. This should not exist, not unless we want to create an entire new genealogy-like structure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the last such cfd discussion was clearly against deletion. As the 2018 World Cup is nigh I expect a slew of new WAGs to be unleashed upon us imminently. Oculi ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - consensus can change, the last discussion was 2011 and I don't think this category is defining or helpful. Giant Snowman 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pretty ridiculous category I agree with the nomination to delete this. Govvy ( talk) 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I honestly cannot see a point to this. I think it amounts to trivia and I would consider that to be indiscriminate information under the terms of WP:NOT. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unuseful and unnecessary category. S.A. Julio ( talk) 14:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The categorisation system is grouping people together by defining characteristics. I don't believe there can be any dispute over whether being a footballers wife/girlfriend is a defining characteristic for the subjects contained. For many, this characteristic is actually the primary reason for notability (e.g. Coleen Rooney, Abbey Clancy, Nancy Dell'Olio). There is extensive independent third party coverage of this subject as a media phenomenon, including academic works. Given the continued high profile of footballers and their partners in wider society, it is obvious this should be a topic worthy of coverage and categorisation, no different from the Category:Royal mistresses of earlier times. I believe this category is not an outlier, but rather creation is merited for such women in relation to other sports, as similar levels of third party coverage is available in both entertainment and serious outlets (and has been for several decades now) (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]). I believe the repeated nomination of this category for deletion relates to editors' distaste for the subject matter, rather than the category being against Wikipedia's categorisation traditions in any way. SFB 19:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if someone's only claim to fame is dating or marrying a footballer, there should likely be a redirect rather than an article WP:BLP1E or WP:INVALIDBIO, so this if this is defining, the article ought not exist so the category would be empty, if not defining the category ought not exist. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very defining for these. Being one does NOT mean being caught by WP:BLP1E "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - A marriage is not a "single event". With the help of the great British media, an endless stream of stories can be produced. Likewise they get vast amounts of coverage of their own doings in the tabloids. There have been many discussions, & circumstances have not changed. Many above clearly don't like the articles, but they should try that view via AFD (chuckles quietly). Meanwhile, while we have the articles, we should have a category for them. Johnbod ( talk) 19:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • At the same time, the category is being overused. I've removed several whose articles lacked any mention. Johnbod ( talk) 11:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is a term used in the British press, when the cover the antics of WAGs. While we have articles on them we need a category for them. Many may well be NN, but the category needs to be emptied through AFDs of those who are NN, not a CFD of the category. The point is that footballers (soccer for US users) have very high salaries, which their WAGs (not all are married) have the ability to spend, often on over the top behaviour, something typical of the nouveau riche. In many cases, their sole notability derives from their husband/boyfriend. I agree that is inherited notability, but the amount of tabloid coverage makes them notable per se. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: Actually, having looked at a good few now, most are independently notable as performers, models, sportspeople, beauty queens, & various other things. Eg Ana Ivanovic - tennis player, probably better known than her husband. It seems the British and Spanish (language) tabloids are the main producers of WAG material, judging by who is only notable for this. Johnbod ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2018 (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:Saga (band) songs

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) 06:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category which is serving only to contain a single redirect, with no other content available to salvage it since none of this band's songs have standalone articles independently of their parent albums. This is not navigationally useful. Bearcat ( talk) 03:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- as per nom-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I really cannot see why a redirect should be in a category. I agree with Bearcat that the category serves no good navigational purpose and so it should be removed. Izzat Kutebar ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom and precedent. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:54, 5 June 2018 (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:County routes in Atlantic County, New Jersey

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 to Category:Roads in X County, New Jersey. Timrollpickering 12:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category is full of redirects. The only pages that are not redirects are statewide county routes (that is routes that are maintained by the county, but travel through multiple counties) Rusf10 ( talk) 01:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all to "Category:Roads in X County, New Jersey" and also add all state, US, and Interstate routes to the categories that are currently in the "Category:Transportation in X County, New Jersey" categories. This way we have a category for the roads in each county in New Jersey, including Interstate, US, state, and county routes. Dough 4872 02:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
That would be a mess and I don't see anything similar being done for other states.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Other states have similar categories, such as Maryland ( Category:Roads in Montgomery County, Maryland for example). Another option would be to merge all the non-redirect content from these county route categories into the "Transportation in X County, New Jersey" categories. Dough 4872 04:08, 5 June 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_5&oldid=871691343"