Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:Mónica Naranjo[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous cat. All subject's related articles are already more appropriately categorized in sub cat Category:Mónica Naranjo albums per WP:OC#Eponymous. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:58, 14 May 2014 (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:Yandel[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous cat per numerous precedent for low populated categories in which articles have an appropriate parent cat and those cats are adequately interlinked. WP:OC#Eponymous. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:53, 14 May 2014 (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:Colored Conventions[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: close for re-assessment: During this discussion, a user removed the bio articles and placed them in a new subcategory, Category:Colored Conventions people. Now the nominated category contains the subcategory plus two articles. If it's thought that the category should still be deleted given this changed situation, an immediate re-nomination should be permitted. Alternatively (or in addition), users may wish to nominate Category:Colored Conventions people per the nominator's original rationale of WP:OC#ASSOCIATED/WP:OC#PERF. (Incidentally, if users are going to do things like this in the midst of a discussion (create a subcategory which effectively removes the stated rationale for deletion of that category), it would be helpful (and nice) for them to participate in the discussion by mentioning the changes that have been made. Otherwise users who approach the discussion later (not to mention the closer) are placed in the time-consuming position of having to figure out what the hang is going on.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a category primarily for people who were delegates at or associated with a Colored Convention. The parent category should in fact be Category:African-Americans' civil rights activists and not "organizations," accordingly. If kept, we'd need a rename to make it clear that these are bio articles -- but I'd say it may need to be deleted per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED or even as a logical extension of WP:OC#PERF. The current category name reads like it's a grouping of articles or other content about actual Colored Conventions, and if that is indeed the long-term goal, I'd be happy to see a recreation of the category, in that event. I'm assuming it originated out of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Colored_Conventions and I'll alert them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with the rationale for deletion, but suggest a little caution. If this grouping is helpful to the project, it should be used as the basis of a project category, by tagging the talk pages with a project banner.
    This project is doing great work documenting a chunk of history, and it is important that any steps which CFD needs to take don't disrupt that good work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too familiar with project categories but yes, anyway this could work would be fine with me. This is indeed great work, I agree, and would imagine many Colored Conventions would be notable and historically significant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (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:Fictional sorcerers[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 both for now to the parent Category:Fictional characters who use magic. Sounds like there may be a developing consensus for further work in upmerging several other subcategories of Category:Fictional characters who use magic, with a possible rename to Category:Fictional magicians. But those ideas can be pursued in future nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional priests and priestesses, Category:Fictional incubi and succubi, etc.; For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than having more categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make the cover also cover the separate categories for witches, wizards, etc. Just a general magic-user-as-profession category. --Niemti (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An inclusive magic-user-category already exists. In a typical fantasy setting where every other character cast spells, most fiction makes a distinction to various "types" of mages, similar to there being different scientists who specialize in research. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Fictional characters who use magic" is for everyone who uses magic (like Morrigan Aensland but that's because she's a supernatural being). There's no clear distinction enough 'distinction to various "types" of mages' for all fiction in existance (whatever really is an universal difference between "wizard" and "sorcerer"?) - it should be just fictional magicians (Magician (fantasy)), a sub-category for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Magicians. --Niemti (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Niemti. You can't compare "fictional sorcerors", "fictional magicians", "fictional witches", to "fictional biologists, physicists, chemists", because there is a single universe with consistent definitions for the real scientists, and there is no consistent definition for the various categories of magic users across different fictional universes. --Lquilter (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Fictional magicians Definitions of wizards, sorcerers and witches are very fluid and overlapping. This category could support all these minor distinctions. SFB 20:54, 16 May 2014 (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:Ghostly Vessels[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: rename/merge as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and merge respectively. The main article ghost ship includes various lists. Category:Ghostly Vessels was created using a description in the lead paragraph, and was intended to correspond to the list at Ghost ship#Folklore, legends and mythology. The supercat Category:Ghost ships also includes Category:Fictional ghost ships, which is fine. Then there is also Category:Fictional ghostly vessels, intended for legends within fiction, which only contains Black Pearl and is IMHO unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Ghostly Vessels to Category:Ghostly vessels – C2A DoctorKubla (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose that one as still insufficiently clear. It needs a full discussion for renaming along the lines of Ghost ships in folklore and mythology. – Fayenatic London 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoctorKubla: how about Category:Legendary ghost ships, C2C within Category:Legendary ships? – Fayenatic London 14:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point of this subcategory was to clearly separate the two different types of ghost ship (paranormal entities vs. real ships found with a missing crew). I'm not sure if "legendary ghost ships" makes the mythological status of these ships clear enough. Maybe "phantom ships", as in phantom vehicle? Pinging User:Alekksandr, the category's creator – I think if he agrees to the renaming, it can still be speedied under C2E? DoctorKubla (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As the category's creator, I confirm that the point was to clearly separate paranormal entities (like the Flying Dutchman) vs. real ships found with a missing crew (like the Marie Celeste). See discussion here. I took the term 'ghostly vessel' from the introductory sentence of Ghost ship - 'A ghost ship ... may be a ghostly vessel in folklore or fiction, such as the Flying Dutchman, or a real derelict found adrift with its crew missing or dead, like the Mary Celeste.' I have no difficulty with the category title 'Phantom ships'.Alekksandr (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full discussion - There are too many issues to deal with on this title for a speedy rename at this point. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (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:Dialects of languages with ISO codes[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: rename. There is no consensus to delete. Since the category will therefore not be deleted, and the nominator (although apparently a new editor) has made a case for renaming which no others have rebutted, the renaming will go ahead. It will be implemented with an edit to template:Infobox language. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) Northeastern Mandarin has an ISO code (ISO 639-6). 2) Cat description reads "This category is filled by setting [isoexception] to 'dialect' in a language infobox. It is intended for dialects and other varieties of languages which do have ISO 639-3 codes; unless the variety is reclassified as a separate language, it cannot be expected to ever have an ISO code, so there is no point in listing it in the main ISO maintenance category, which is intended to capture articles where the ISO code was overlooked." Currently the category is pure nonsense, as so many things in Wikipedia. LangBoss (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a dialect of a language that has an ISO 639-3 code is not defining for the dialect; it no doubt existed and was notable before, independent of, and will be so long after, ISO 639-3 is deprecated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I don't know much about the renaming proposal, but I disagree with those who have suggested deletion. The concerns of whether or not this is defining for the dialect/language is not terribly relevant here, since this is an administrative category. I've no idea how significant this category is for the overall tracking within Category:Language infobox tracking categories, but it seems strange to me to remove it from this system without touching the system as a whole. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2014 (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:England MP stubs[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The current category name is ambiguous, and implies that it is for MPs from England in any Parliament. In fact, it is solely for MPs in the Parliament of England, which was abolished in 1707. The parent is Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707), named that way to avoid this ambiguity.
The associated stub templates should also be renamed as above, so reduce confusion.
Note:
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 14 May 2014 (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:Social sciences methodology[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naturalness, science is not pluralised when part of a name like this. It would be pluralised if it were Category:Methodology in the social sciences, but we do not name methodology categories in this format. Andrewaskew (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2014 (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:10-90 model television series[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for television series distributed under a particular syndication contract model; while admittedly that model is slightly different from the usual one for television syndication in the business sense, it results in no substantive difference to the viewer — and since our readers and editors are, by and large, viewers rather than television industry insiders, that makes this essentially WP:OC#TRIVIA rather than a useful point of categorization. The syndication model in question doesn't even have its own standalone article, in fact, but is merely a subsection within Debmar-Mercury, the one and only distribution company that actually uses it — so while I have no objection to listing the series in that article, a category for them is a non-WP:DEFINING "insider baseball" distinction that isn't actually important or useful to our readers. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_14&oldid=1138399700"