Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

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:Fiction about haunted houses. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional haunted hotels to Category:Haunted hotels in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Half of the articles in this category are about The Shining (franchise) (including The Shining (film), The Shining (miniseries), and The Shining (novel)). The rest are other media that features haunted hotels. Rather than delete the category, we can re-align it with the articles that appear in it. Jontesta (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Ghosts in popular culture or delete, this doesn't contain what it says it should. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, we all seem to agree that the category name is not representative of the content. I would prefer Category:Fiction about haunted houses though, similar to siblings in Category:Fiction by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Fiction about haunted houses" would be fine by me and would give it room to expand. I otherwise agree with deleting per ZXCVBNM's suggestion given there are only a few actual articles. Jontesta (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fiction about haunted houses to reflect the actual contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2024 (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:Inline interwiki link templates. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Interwiki link templates - inline to Category:Inline interwiki link templates

Nominator's rationale: I was going to suggest a rename to fix the MOS:DASH error, but I think this name flows better. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:59, 6 September 2024 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Government of the East Rand to Category:East Rand

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - per nominator's statement. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2024 (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: withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tamil-language Indian films to Category:Tamil-language films

Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to cover the same scope and "[blank]-language films" seems to be the established practice in Category:Indian films by language. ~~ BaduFerreira (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not the same scope, if you see Category:Tamil-language films by country then you will understand that three countries make Tamil films. We have to just move all Indian films to that category. "Seems to be established practice" - Not likely. See the category Category:Indian films by language carefully. It has Category:Bengali-language Indian films and Category:English-language Indian films. The established practice is when a language based cinema includes multiple country then it is not wrong to divide them into country-based categories. You have to just move all Indian Tamil films to the category and there wouldn’t be any confusion. That's it. Mehedi Abedin 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification! I think my confusion came from both categories being categorized under that Category:Indian films by language parent category, whereas Category:Tamil-language films has a wider scope than the parent category implies. I'll go ahead and move that out, but again thank you for the clarification. I'm not sure how to retract my proposal, but Mehedi's justification for the two categories makes sense! BaduFerreira (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2024 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Drawing artists to Category:Draughtsmen

Nominator's rationale: We already have a long established category tree for these artists, the new one should be merged into it. Fram (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Except possibly for Native American etc artists, this is not a standard term. Those subcats can be kept, but the doubly unhelpful Category:Drawing artists from the Holy Roman Empire (new from JPL, natch) should be deleted. Both trees are pretty poor at catching those European artists considered especially important for their drawings. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with merging, if we leave a redirect. I only created it because the Native American category survived the cfd, and I didn't want it to be fully isolated. Mason (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1947 in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated container category, the next year is 1979. With only two subcategories there isn't much need to fill up the intermediate decades. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This category will have to be manually deleted, as the subcats use templates that populate this parent if it exists. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 11 September 2024 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Lists of Major League Baseball retired numbers to Category:Major League Baseball people with retired numbers and Category:Lists of retired numbers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. Only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2024 (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 with no prejudice against a wider nomination. Without a closer hat on, User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD is very helpful for mass nominations, if The9Man wishes to pursue one. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Actress filmographies to Category:Female actor filmographies

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with industry standards and international relevance - The9Man ^Talk 09:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't all actresses categories be renamed then? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course, let's start somewhere. - The9Man ^Talk 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting at a random place in the middle of the tree does not make much sense. Better check at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film whether there is support for this at all and then come back with a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept that we could discuss how we categorize actresses, but the idea that "female actor" is the "industry standard" consensus term is not clearly the unequivocal case — and even if we did decide to go that route it would have to be done across the board to all Category:Actresses categories, with this minor branch of the tree not being the obvious or logical place to start. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• When you get into different time periods, nationalities and mediums, you're talking about renaming hundreds (thousands?) of categories. That's a discussion that should be held in a larger venue than one category CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose per above. There's no reason to change this particular category away from consistency with the rest of the Category:Actresses tree. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose per Liz's comment and Bearcat's comment. GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2024 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Populated places in ancient Arabia to Category:Former populated places in Yemen

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. The single article is about a place that would currently be in Yemen. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - Per nominator's rationale

GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2024 (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:Technische Universitäten in Germany and create Category:Technische Hochschulen in Germany to fulfil the split. The discussion brought up further issues, but this looks like the first step. asilvering (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mess, based on the mistranslation "Technical University".

In Germany, there are "Technische Universitäten" (which usually call themselves "Institute/University of Technology" in English) and "Technische Hochschulen", which are Fachhochschulen. They're both completely different types of higher education institutions (both depending on the type of high school degree you need to access them, as well as the right to confer PhDs and Habilitation). You can read more about this in de:Technische Hochschule and de:Technische Universität.

It's been a constant for a while in enwiki that many editors (without really understanding the differences) translate everything as "Technical University" (that's actually what Google Translate suggests in both cases), but it creates a big mess.

This category should be deleted, and it should be replaced by Category: Technische Universitäten in Germany and Category: Technische Hochschulen in Germany, which recognizes that both things included in this wastebasket category (based on poor translation) are completely different things. SFBB (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS1: The same issues applies to other countries with differentiation between Fachhochschulen/Hogescholen and Universities like Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium. I understand there is an aim for consistency given the existence of Category:Technical universities and colleges by country but it simply does not work, because within those systems you're talking about completely different things:

PS2: Perhaps all Technische Universitäten should be merely classified under Category:Universities in Germany as there is legally no difference between them (as correctly acknowledged in List of universities in Germany). Technische Universitäten are, in their own right, full universities (not technical universities) with a technical tradition, name, and perhaps emphasis? But, based on their right as full universities, they offer all subjects that are usually found in full universities (and make them fundamentally different from what is understood as a technical university or college). For example, just listing the Technische Universitäten for TU9, but this applies to most TUs:

Law (e.g. TU Dresden, TU Darmstadt, Leibniz University Hannover),

Medicine (e.g. TU München, TU Dresden, RWTH Aachen),

Humanities (e.g.TU Berlin, TU Braunschweig, RWTH Aachen, Leibniz University Hannover, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, University of Stuttgart),

History (TU Berlin, TU Darmstadt, TU Dresden),

Education (TU Berlin, TU Braunschweig, RWTH Aachen), Leibniz University Hannover),

Social Sciences(TU München, TU Darmstadt, RWTH Aachen, TU Braunschweig, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, University of Stuttgart))

SFBB (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, this difference is without analogy in English-speaking countries which makes it complicated. I like nom's PS2 as it suggests moving true universities to Category:Universities in Germany. For the remainder of the category it can be renamed e.g. to Category: Technische Hochschulen in Germany or Category:Technical colleges (Hochschulen) in Germany. The categories need a good description in order to avoid that the categories are nominated later again in order to return to the situation of today. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: SFBB is fairly clear they are supporting deletion of the category; are you, too? You seem to support a rename and rescoping, though I might be misunderstanding. (Or are you supporting deletion as a first step?) Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a good observation. While it is a mess, it should be solved differently than by deletion. Nom recognizes this too in their PS2. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on non-deletion paths forward (though, of course, it may be decided that deletion is the best path forward!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SFBB: feel free to comment on the above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  basically potayto, potahto. Whether we delete it and create two (or one) new categories/y, or we rename and repurpose the existent one, does not make any difference. So, if you prefer the second option, that's perfectly fine (and it would even have the advantage that the info does not get lost, without me having the require help to see a previous state of a deleted page) SFBB (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe, more importantly: should I also start a request for other countries with a similar situation (e.g. Austria, Belgium, NL, Switzerland)? SFBB (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there hasn't been any opposition so far I suppose you can just go ahead with new nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to favor renaming; discussion on rename target would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to rename this category away from consistency with Category:Technical universities and colleges by country. It sounds like Technische Hochschulen are technical universities – in other words, that one isn't a poor translation, so there's no issue with the title. The English term "technical university" is unambiguous here, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated. The only problem with the category is that some articles have been erroneously placed into it. The solution is to remove them from the category, and put a note on its description page to help future editors avoid making the same error. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jlwoodwa: as you are apparently against splitting, it is unclear what sort of error you are referring to. Please explain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Thanks, I see how my original message was unclear. I am in favor of removing the Technische Universitäten from Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany, since apparently they are not technical universities (as the English phrase is used). This can be done without renaming the category. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I happened to find article Institute of technology. Although it sounds a bit awkward to me, "technical institution" may apparently serve as an English translation of Technische Hochschule so instead of Category:Technische Hochschulen in Germany we might use Category:Institutes of technology in Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the nomination, "institutes of technology" is actually the preferred translation of Technische Universitäten. Translating the other type (Technische Hochschulen) as "institutes of technology" would just be confusing. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under Germany both the Fachhochschule and universities are discussed, so that was a wrong suggestion from my side. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly, because I have been re-reading this discussion on and off for the past couple of hours and every time I come to a different conclusion of the consensus in the discussion is. I want to make sure I understand everyone correctly:
  • @Jlwoodwa: do you support simply removing the Technische Universitäten from Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany?
  • @Marcocapelle: do you support a split between Category: Technische Universitäten in Germany and Category: Technische Hochschulen in Germany, ideally renaming Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany to one of those two targets? If so, do you have a preferred rename target?
  • @SFBB: do you also support a split, ideally with a rename? If so, do you have a preferred rename target?
• Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any split is better that the current situation, so yes: I support it. Anyways, some thoughts about it:

1.- Keeping Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany without the TUs may theoretically work, but I don't think it's a good idea because i) Technical university is a false cognate of Technische Universität, and it may lead to a lot of confusion and (thus) maintenance.

2.- On the other side (because of the question about which of the two categories after the split should be linked to the upper category Category:Technical universities and colleges by country), the upper category is also problematic. While in other countries the division may not be as clear-cut as in Germany, Austria, NL, Belgium, Switzerland, etc., where there is a clear cut between both types of institutions related to the type of high-school degree required to access them as well as their ability to confer doctoral degree,, the difference is still there. For instance in the US the "mother" category Category:Technological universities in the United States (note that here the category is technological universities, which is different from technical universities) also include full universities, such as MIT (focused on research, conferring PhD degrees, and covering a wide range of education including anthropology, literature, humanities, history, poli sci, biology, cognitive science, etc.) and clearly technical institutions such as Cal Poly, which are clearly oriented towards applied sciences and "learning by doing" (and they do not offer PhD degrees). They're completely different types of education. Obviously the division is not as clear-cut (as in the US there are not different types of high school degrees that allow accessing different types of higher education institutions), but it is clear that there is a problem (obviously MIT has much more in common with full or traditional universities than with Cal Poly). The discussion in Institute of technology#Institutes of technology versus polytechnics is quite good.

3.- In general, I think we could begin by splitting the clear-cut cases (Germany and the aforementioned countries), where it makes no sense to group both types of institutions together. I’d also suggest setting aside the "mother" category for the moment (not linking any of the new categories to the mother category). Later on, we should consider splitting the Category:Technical universities and colleges by country, but that’s a more significant issue, and we would need to define clear criteria (one good criterion could be the ability to confer PhD degrees). That being said, I’m not sure if that discussion should be here or elsewhere. SFBB (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: a split between Category: Technische Universitäten in Germany and Category: Technische Hochschulen in Germany is certainly ok. While these are non-English-language targets it is the least ambiguous and we have non-English page names more often. I would rename the current category to Category: Technische Universitäten in Germany because this will more likely lead to some frowning and people are able to trace its history and find this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon re-reading this discussion, I think I ultimately come down on the side of supporting a split between Category:Technische Universitäten in Germany and Category:Technische Hochschulen in Germany. I agree with Marcocapelle that renaming the current category to Category:Technische Universitäten in Germany would be the best way to implement the split. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I just discovered more problems. Most (but not all) TUs are already listed under Category:Universities in Germany (that is the slightest of the issues) and there is also the category Category:Engineering universities and colleges in Germany which is as messy as Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (also mixing up Fachhochschulen and TUs). This is really a mess. The worst part is that there also exist the category Category:Engineering universities and colleges by country as a subcategory of Category:Technical universities and colleges by country and (after checking for about one hour in many of them) every editor is categorizing whatever anywhere. It's a complete mess, and the more I dive into the categories, the more I'm getting convinced this needs an integral solution.

Of course, we can start with the obvious cases of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, NL and Belgium (where the difference between institutions is 100% clear-cut), but all these categories are an enormous mess. And obviously categorizing together many, many things that have absolutely nothing in common is only creating disinformation.

@HouseBlaster: while I think there is a consensus about the initial question, please re-list as this requires more discussion (I certainly would not know how to continue).

I also tag Jlwoodwa, Marcocapelle.

SFBB (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but let's solve problems one by one please. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot relist the discussion because I am now a participant. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with taking on the problems one by one....but I'd like to know how to continue? Any opinion? do you also see the problem? SFBB (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2024 (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.