Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Category:Indo-Pacific fauna

: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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose (up)merging :Category:Defunct Brazilian futsal clubs to :Category:Defunct futsal clubs and :Category:Futsal clubs in Brazil, or rename to :Category:Defunct futsal clubs in Brazil (C2.C)

:Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content in either :Category:Defunct futsal clubs or :Category:Futsal clubs in Brazil to warrant an intersecting category. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Carioca) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• No objection from me. Thanks for letting me know. --Carioca (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 :Category:McClatchy family (newspapers) to :Category:McClatchy people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:McClatchy family (newspapers) to :Category:McClatchy family

:Nominator's rationale: the "(newspapers)" qualifier is unnecessary and misleading. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• How about :Category:McClatchy (newspaper family). We need a disambiguator to prevent the category collecting a host of people with the same surname, but no close relationship. Such people should be listed in McClatchy (surname). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer Upmerge/No Objection to Rename Without a main article on the family, not only do we lack a clear name but a clear scope to ground the membership. The poorly named parent category, :Category:The McClatchy Company (people) :Category:McClatchy people, only has 3 direct articles so I would favor upmerging this category. No objection to any of the proposed renames if category is kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer Upmerge/No Objection to Rename per RelevelationDirect. For info, :Category:The McClatchy Company (people) has been speedily renamed to :Category:McClatchy people, which is the target for the upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

::The target category was renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Received barnstars templates to :Category:Wikipedia awards user templates, or rename to :Category:Wikipedia barnstar user templates

:Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content in :Category:Wikipedia awards user templates to warrant splitting out a category specifically for barnstar-related userboxes. If the category is kept, then we should at least rename it to follow the established naming convention for the category tree. (Pining the category's creator, User:DannyS712) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• No objection from me. Thanks for the ping. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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, Option B. There is a consensus to rename, but no consensus on whether to prefer Option A or Option B. So I have closed it as Option B, to retain the status quo of not using the word "WikiProject" ... without prejudice to any further proposal to rename per Option A.
Pinging both participants: @Black Falcon and @The Nth User. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Barnstar award templates to :Category:Wikipedia barnstar templates

:** :Category:Barnstars with alternative versions‎ to :Category:Wikipedia barnstar templates with alternative versions

:* Additionally, and assuming support for the above, the subcategories would need to be renamed as well:

:** Option A:

:*** :Category:Food and drink barnstar award templates‎ to :Category:WikiProject Food and drink barnstar templates (per :Category:WikiProject Food and drink templates)

:*** :Category:Games barnstar award templates to :Category:WikiProject Games barnstar templates (per :Category:WikiProject Games templates)

:*** :Category:Video game barnstar award templates‎ to :Category:WikiProject Video games barnstar templates (per :Category:WikiProject Video games templates)

:** Option B:

:*** :Category:Food and drink barnstar award templates‎ to :Category:Food and drink barnstar templates

:*** :Category:Games barnstar award templates to :Category:Game barnstar templates (singular "game", cf. :Category:Game templates)

:*** :Category:Video game barnstar award templates‎ to :Category:Video game barnstar templates

:Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with :Category:Wikipedia barnstars (by definition, barnstars are awards, so "barnstar award" is redundant) as well as the parallel structure of :Category:Wikipedia awards → :Category:Wikipedia award templates. For the subcategories, I have a slight preference for Option A. (Pinging all recently active category creators: User:Woohookitty, User:The Nth User, User:Datumizer) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

::I agree, now that you've pointed it out, that the award part is unnecessary. As for the two options. I think that Option A is better. For Option B, the organization rationale might be unclear (i.e. it might not make immediate sense to someone why Category:Video game barnstar templates isn't a subcategory of Category:Game barnstar templates), but with the WikiProject at the beginning, it should be obvious that the categories aren't parent and child because they're for two separate WikiProjects. Also, Option A is more consistent with the parent categories. Also, I think that for whichever option is chosen, it might be a good idea to have category redirects from the other option.

::However, here is something else that I noticed: There are a fair number of barnstars for different religions in :Category:Barnstar award templates that could be moved to a subcategory for organizational purposes, but Template:Calvinism barnstar, Template:Christianity barnstar, Template:The Jewish Barnstar, Template:The New Jewish Barnstar, Template:Jewishbarnstar, and likely the other barnstars for individual religions are each part of the WikiProject for that particular religion instead of WikiProject Religion, so would it still be appropriate to put them in the same category? If they are put in the same category, we would have to use Option B for the naming of that category. That would raise the question: Should the categories that are based on a single WikiProject use Option B for consistency, Option A to differentiate them from categories that are not based on a single WikiProject, or should it not make a difference? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

:::That's a good question. I think we ought to select just one approach for all subcategories (i.e., :Category:Foo barnstar templates or :Category:WikiProject Foo barnstar templates, but not both), but I, too, am struggling to decide which would be best. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Kentucky women basketball players to :Category:Basketball players from Kentucky and :Category:American women's basketball players and :category:Sportswomen from Kentucky

:Nominator's rationale: The only of its kind, it is an unnecessary split of multiple subcategories. {{cl|Sportswomen from Kentucky}} seems superfluous as well but that can be addressed in a separate nomination. TM 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Indo-Pacific_fauna. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Indo-Pacific fauna}}

:* Propose deleting :Category:Indo-Pacific crustaceans

:Nominator's rationale: In enwp we normally categorize things in the  seas/oceans using non-overlapping categories for the Indian Ocean, Pacific etc (see :Category:Biota by sea or ocean, :Category:Volcanism by ocean and many others).  These categories nominated for deletion are for animals found in a region that overlaps part of the Indian Ocean and part of the Pacific (which is an unnecessary complication to the category structure). How is a person creating a new article about, for example, a fish species found off Madagascar, supposed to know that it should go in this category (as well as the Indian Ocean category)? Note: Until recently these categories were putting a Hawaii category under an Indian Ocean category .

:If not deleted then these categories should be renamed because in enwp fauna-by-location categories are normally named "Fauna of Foo" (e.g. "Fauna of Africa" not "African Fauna"). DexDor ^(talk) 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary layer. Odd that :Category:Fauna of the Indian Ocean and :Category:Crustaceans of the Indian Ocean are not subcats. Oculi (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indo-pacific does not (afaics) cover the whole of the Indian Ocean. DexDor ^(talk) 07:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• You seem to be right. This seems to make the category even less useful. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep

: - Every species listed in the category has a range of presence +/- equivalent to the Indo-Pacific natural region... therefore what is the advantage in splitting it into two separate categories. (i.e. "Indian" & "Pacific")?

: - The "Fauna of the Indian Ocean" cat. not being eligible as a sub-category of the "Indo-Pacific fauna" cat. has nothing to do with whether or not the latter should be maintained, either. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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: manually delete. @Marcocapelle, please can you implement thsi? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Ethnic groups in USA}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Lithuanians in USA}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Lithuanian Roman Catholic churches in USA to :Category:Lithuanian-American culture

:Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, these categories were created without checking whether appropriate categories already exist. There is actually a whole tree under :Category:Lithuanian American. Besides the abbreviation "USA" in the category name is not appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 per nominator (@Marcocapelle). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose merge :Category:9th century in Iraq to :Category:9th century in the Abbasid Caliphate and :Category:Iraq under the Abbasid Caliphate

:* Propose merge :Category:9th-century Iraqi people to :Category:9th-century Abbasid people

:* Propose merge :Category:10th-century Iraqi people to :Category:10th-century Abbasid people

:* Propose merge :Category:11th-century Iraqi people to :Category:11th-century Abbasid people

:* Propose merge :Category:12th-century Iraqi people to :Category:12th-century Abbasid people

:* Propose merge :Category:13th-century Iraqi people to :Category:13th-century Abbasid people

:Nominator's rationale: merge, although Iraq or Arab Iraq is an old name for the region, there was no independent polity called so in the Middle Ages. It was part of the Abbasid Caliphate from 750 to 1258, and as the Abbasid Caliphate was in a process of disintegration, it roughly coincided with the current area of Iraq after the 10th century. There is certainly no reason to keep two category trees next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly merge, but are the targets correctly formed? Abbasid refers to a dynasty not a nationality. :Category:9th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate would be better. We had a similar issue with the Ottoman Empire, where Ottoman refers to the ruling family, not to what outsiders called Turkey. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

:* That is a very good comment. But let's complete the discussion about the merge first and then I will nominate the Abbasid people categories in a few weeks from now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, follow-up nomination see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose merge :Category:Coptic Christians by nationality to :Category:Coptic Christians

:* Propose merge :Category:Coptic Christians from Australia to :Category:Australian people of Coptic descent, :Category:Coptic Christians and :Category:Australian Oriental Orthodox Christians

:* Propose merge :Category:Coptic Christians from the United Kingdom to :Category:British people of Coptic descent, :Category:Coptic Christians and :Category:British Oriental Orthodox Christians

:* Propose merge :Category:Coptic Christians from the United States to :Category:American people of Coptic descent, :Category:Coptic Christians and :Category:American Oriental Orthodox Christians

:Nominator's rationale: merge, only few diaspora Copts are specifically known for being Christian. The Coptic descent categories by nationality should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• No objection -- Being Coptic is synonymous with being Christian. If you are a Muslim you are not Coptic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support no objection from me. Kraose (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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 (WP:NAC). DexDor ^(talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Coiners to :Category:Coin designers

:Nominator's rationale: First and foremost for clarity: it's a fairly obscure term. Second, it's no accident that two of the parent cats are {{cat|Designers}} and {{cat|Currency designers}}. And lastly, there's no article for ":coiner" - not even a redirect. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- coiner may refer to a person who makes coins (mainly hammered coins) or a counterfeiter. However the category seems to be about designers. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support but a new category is also needed for the makers of coins - we should have an overall article but we have Münzmeister, Master of the Mint and Warden of the Mint, and probably many others (yes Moneyer is hiding away). These were very important positions in ancient Rome (where coiners like Gnaeus Lucretius got their portraits on coins before politicians did) and medieval Europe (when their names were often carried), followed by a phase when some artists also made the coins (but others didn't), then by the modern way when the roles are normally completely distinct. These categories seem rather plagued by parallel trees for "coinage" and "currency", which only meet at intervals..... So we have :Category:Currency designers & many subs, much of which should perhaps be moved over. I've rarely seen a messier set of categories, when you lift a few stones. I have set up :Category:Moneyers of ancient Rome as a start. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

----

: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.