Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 27

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:PPR (company) people to Category:Kering people

Nominator's rationale: PPR changed its name to Kering in 2013. All the people in this category is now Kering people Knewdates (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:05, 28 September 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT directors from the United States
• Propose deleting Category:LGBT directors from Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by triple intersection of sexuality, occupation and nationality. This is permitted in some specific cases (politicians, writers, etc.) where the intersection is actually meaningful in and of itself, but this isn't one of them -- being an LGBT director isn't meaningfully different in the United States than it is in Canada or Australia or France or the United Kingdom, and LGBT occupational categories are not routinely subcatted for nationality across the board.
Although the parent category is large enough to warrant some form of subcategorization, it would be much, much more useful and relevant to start subcategories for the film vs. television vs. theatre distinction rather than subbing them by nationality. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but there is also the Taiwanese category. Do you want to include that here too? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should be bundled here, so I've added it, but for the record it didn't exist yet when I nominated this one — it was created about half an hour after this discussion was initiated. I've also modified the proposal; following nomination here I actually did implement the proposed film, theatre and television subcategories, so everybody in these categories is already in one or more of those and upmerging the entries directly to the parent category is no longer necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 30 September 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.

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:Optica (society). ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Optical Society to Category:Optica

Nominator's rationale: Organisation has been renamed and new category name would better reflect contents of category now. Zeromonk (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zeromonk. There are three sub-categories which all include Optical Society in their titles. What do you think should be done about them? No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: I think they should also be renamed accordingly because I believe they are still active things rather than historical (and therefore attached only to the society as previously named). Sorry if I went about this nomination wrong, this is my first time proposing a category name-change, so thanks for your patience and help. Zeromonk (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Zeromonk. We're all learning as we go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article is Optica (society), so the category should be Category:Optica (society). Oculi (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Oculi. Category:The Optical Society to Category:Optica (society) and rename the three sub-categories to Category:Optica (society) academic journals, Category:Awards of Optica (society)‎ and Category:Members of Optica (society). No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per No Great Shaker. I will tag the first two subcategories too. The members subcategory is discussed in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 5 October 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.

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) 06:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ice hockey in Shreveport, Louisiana to Category:Sports teams in Shreveport, Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Category contains just two sub-categories and no articles. Both subcategories contain just the team article and a category for the team's players. User:Namiba 11:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. It is enough to categorise local teams by state. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both subcats are already in both Category:Sports teams in Shreveport, Louisiana and Category:Ice hockey teams in Louisiana. No prejudice against re-creation if it grows beyond its current two subcats (each of which has grown a little since the parent cat was nominated). Grutness...wha? 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:51, 2 October 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping malls and Category:Shopping centers

Nominator's rationale: Or alternatively, rename Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping centers.

Per the discussion immediately below, the main article was split last year into Shopping center as the overview article and Shopping mall as a type of shopping center/centre. Category:Shopping malls by type needs to be renamed and re-accommodated under a Category:Shopping centers, but it's not quite clear to me whether this should be a rename, or a split so that Category:Shopping centers is created as a parent. (If this ends in renaming, a follow-up nomination should be done for the subcats, but I won't tag them just yet in case the malls tree is retained.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the article on shopping centres is to be believed, shopping centers (sic) include shopping malls. As such, surely all you need is to create a parent cat at Category:Shopping centers and move the non-mall articles into it. No need for any renaming/splitting discussion. Grutness...wha? 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yeah. "Create a parent cat ... and move the non-mall articles into it" is pretty much what I meant by "split". Just wanted to make sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, go for it :) Grutness...wha? 04:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... on second thoughts, judging by the discussion on types of mall, this is more confusing that I thought. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's indeed muddled. There appear to be different understandings of the terms, one being that they are equivalent American/British English words, the other being that the meanings are actually different. This latter interpretation was implemented in the main articles last year, and I'm only just trying to make the category reflect that. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons explained in the Category:Shopping malls by type discussion below. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Ultimately this is an ENGVAR issue. "mall" is an American term, currently being applied to far too many non-American countries, where this is probably an inappropriate term. Unless there is a robust definition to split centre (or center) and mall, this should be left well alone. This is currently a case of American linguistic imperialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if I understand correctly, User:Oculi supports splitting in the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 5 October 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls by type to Category:Shopping centers by type

Nominator's rationale: The parent article was split into Shopping center and Shopping mall last year. They now state that shopping center/centre is the wider term, with shopping mall being a type of shopping center. This category, which covers the various types, should therefore be renamed to follow the wider term. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a subcat scheme for Category:Shopping malls and as such cannot be renamed by itself; moreover Category:Shopping centers is a redirect to Category:Shopping malls. The rationale would appear to support a rename of Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping centers, or the creation of Category:Shopping centers as a parent of Category:Shopping malls (which would be plausible). Oculi (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally going to follow up with a rename proposal for Category:Shopping malls, but then it didn't seem clear that it contained subjects that would fall under the wider scope but not malls. Naturally if the nominated category is renamed to Category:Shopping malls by type, it should be reorganized as a parent of Category:Shopping malls instead. I'll start another nom to discuss whether Category:Shopping malls should be renamed or split. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Suggested use of an American spelling is contentious here because "shopping centre" is a common term in GB and elsewhere. That could be why Category:Shopping centers is a redirect. Also, as Oculi says, Category:Shopping malls by type is a subcat of Category:Shopping malls which is a valid category. In GB, we recognise a shopping mall as a different entity to a shopping centre due to factors such as location, layout and size. There may be another perception in the USA. I think this is a case of leave well alone. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly not a case of leaving well enough alone, as such the category is currently incorrect according to the articles, which state that shopping center/center is the broader term. The category was created before the shopping center/centre and shopping mall articles were separated, and assumes they're the same thing. Leaving it as is would go directly against your claim that "we recognise a shopping mall as a different entity to a shopping centre". I suggested the center spelling because that is what is used by the main Shopping center article. Personally I have no problem with using Category:Shopping centres by type instead, but I'm quite sure it would be opposed based on the discrepancy with the article. Whether this is an ENGVAR topic where the British spelling should be preferred should probably be discussed in a requested move on the article. If the article is renamed, then the category can be speedily updated to reflect it. But it first needs to be corrected away from the mall wording. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be Category:Shopping centers, per the article, with 'centre' used as appropriate in local subcats: completely standard, not at all contentious. No chance of renaming the article unless it has been renamed surreptitiously from 'centre' in the past. 'Mall' is not a UK term either although we know what it means. Oculi (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The move/split discussion for the article is here. Oculi (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leave well alone unless there is a well-thought out nom with a logical distintction between centre/center and mall. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, have you looked at the Shopping center and Shopping mall articles? a logical distinction has been presented there for the past year. These CfDs are only trying to bring the categories in line with the articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1492 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1493 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1495 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1503 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1509 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1510 in New Spain
• Propose deleting Category:1515 in New Spain

Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic, New Spain was established in 1521 and the Spanish West Indies became part of it in 1535. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If a parent category for each is needed (which it isn't yet, by the looks of it), there is an article Hispanic America... perhaps Category:1492 in Hispanic America +c would be usable? Grutness...wha? 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 28 September 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:9th-century rulers of Portugal to Category:9th-century counts of Portugal (Asturias-León)
• Propose renaming Category:10th-century rulers of Portugal to Category:10th-century counts of Portugal (Asturias-León)
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century rulers of Portugal to Category:11th-century counts of Portugal (Asturias-León)
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century rulers of Portugal to Category:12th-century counts of Portugal (Asturias-León)

Nominator's rationale: rename, more accurate, WP:C2C per Category:Counts of Portugal (Asturias-León) and per precedent in this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 28 September 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.