Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Ships in Norse mythology[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: Keep - jc37 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, why single out ships? Should there be a category for every different type of mythological object? I don't think that would be practical. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category is not WP:ARBITRARYCAT and looks fine to me. A straight deletion wouldn't be appropriate as the articles would need to be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it resides in mythological ships category and Norse mythology category, so I don't see the nom's meaning. The category are already categorized under Category:Mythological ships, so how is this being singled out? Are you saying it is a trivial intersection (OVERLAPCAT)? As it isn't arbitrary. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a quick glance at Category:Norse mythology reveals several subcats of form xxx in Norse mythology, and why not? Oculi (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Why not just use Category:Artifacts in Norse mythology for the ships? At a glance, none of the other categories are about inanimate objects. Unless my understanding of the term artifact is incorrect, and it wouldn't be appropriate for a ship.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (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:Mythological ships[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: Keep - jc37 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Ships in Norse mythology covers four out of five of the ships. Noah's ark is the only other ship in the category. Also per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, why single out ships? Should there be a category for every different type of mythological object? I don't think that would be practical. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category is not WP:OVERLAPCAT with that category (which you then CFDed!) and looks fine to me. A straight deletion wouldn't be appropriate as the articles would need to be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how is this OVERLAPCAT? If there are sufficient number of items, why shouldn't a subcategory be created for organizational purposes? And you make a false equivalency that because one type of thing is categorized that all types of thing must be categorized. Category:Mythological swords exists, and I do not see you nominating it for deletion. We don't have articles on every mythological thing, does that mean we should delete articles on all mythological things because we didn't write articles on every single thing? Also the Argo is neither Noah's Arc nor Norse. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is difficult to think of a better phrase for the fundamental defining characteristic of The Preserver of Life than 'mythological ship'. Oculi (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is nothign wrong with having this worldwide category, parenting the Norse one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many ships in mythology. Wikipedia has very poor coverage of mythological systems outside of Christianity, Germanic, and Greco-Roman, and that's a problem, but it won't be addressed by simply deleting a category that could be filled up were Wikipedia further along int these areas. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2015 (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:Mobile game developers[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: merge Category:Mobile game developers to Category:Mobile game companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting to merge Category:Mobile game developers into Category:Mobile game companies because of redundancy. Alternatively Category:Mobile game companies could be merged into Category:Mobile game developers - I chose it the other way round as there are more entries in the latter.

Also off-topic: why aren't these sections created automatically? Is that intentional? --Fixuture (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose I think the intention (of having separate categories) is to separate companies that develop games from companies that publish them. However, the categories could do with some explanation of this and if there are lots of companies that do both then it may not be a useful distinction.
Regarding creating CFD discussions - I recommend using WP:Twinkle. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support same thing, different name --Anarchyte 04:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Mobile game developers was actually meant to just feature developers (persons) and not companies? if that was the case it seems Tom Spilman would be the only entry. Furthermore there could be game development organizations that aren't companies such as open source organizations or alike. So I'm still not sure what to do about those 2 categories. Maybe it would be a better idea to merge "Mobile game companies" into "Mobile game developers"? --Fixuture (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roughly half of the articles of this category are developers and publishers, the other half is developers or publishers. It may be an alternative not to merge but instead to purge the category and to create a new category of "publishers" but I don't think any of this is really urgent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (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:15th-century people from Georgia (country)[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: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:13th-century people from Georgia (country) to Category:13th-century Georgian people

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with similarly named categories. Slivicon (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cancelled after reading the previous discussion about Category:People from Georgia (country). --Slivicon (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2015 (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:2020 establishments in China[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think rather too premature to be creating 2020 establishment categories. Tim! (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The contents haven't actually been established, only planned. kennethaw88 • talk 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Establishment categories should not exist before the year they cover. 5 years early is totally unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2015 (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.

Years in the Republic of Texas[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 for consistency with the establishments sub-cats, which were renamed with more of a consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_8#Pre-US_annexation_establishments_in_Texas. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 1 September 2015 (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 transgender and transsexual characters[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: No action, CFD nomination was not needed. User:BDD, please go ahead creating the additional category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Did I format this right? I don't propose renaming or deleting this category, but I don't want fictional cross-dressers lumped in to it. Unless we were to rename it—which would result in a very unwieldy title—it's going to keep being confusing. There's a scope note, but they have their limits. BDD (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not sure if this was formatted right either but you're absolutely correct. Dressing in clothes associated with the opposite sex and identifying with the sex not matching one's body are clearly very distinct concepts, it's bizarre that they're casually conflated here.
On that note, should we keep using one category for transgender and transsexual? My understanding is that transsexual is an outdated term (I've had people get offended when I used it). Can someone more knowledgeable about these issues offer their input? —Flax5 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was also my impression of "transsexual". We have separate articles on Transgender and Transsexual, though the latter is in Category:Transgender. And some people do identify as "transsexual"—see Julia Serano and Whipping Girl. It could be a generational difference, perhaps? For now, I'm tentatively ok with keeping those two together. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (not sure it even needs a CFD discussion). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer This seems uncontroversial. Feel free to close and ping me; I can carry it out myself rather than making you do it. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2015 (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:Athletics (sport)[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) 04:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy, taking to a full discussion. This is more a procedural nomination than anything, I recently closed the RM where the consensus was to move the article to Sport of athletics and I try and tidy up loose ends like updating category names when I process a move. So I'm not overly attached to the proposed title, but on the face of it it does seem good sense to use the same name for the category as for the article. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per move request that renamed the article. "Athletics (sport)" is highly unclear per the move discussion, and requires particular dialects of English to understand instead of causing confusion with general sportiness, while the sport itself is not restricted to places where those dialects of English are spoken, but is competed in all regions. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2015 (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:Alphabet days[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. MER-C 12:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge, the one article is already in Category:Korean alphabet, Category:Public holidays in North Korea and Category:Public holidays in South Korea. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't seem that any other country has an Alphabet Day. kennethaw88 • talk 20:47, 20 June 2015 (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:Lists of public holidays by region[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. MER-C 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as above (and also became dividing by region would impede, rather than aid, navigation). Neutralitytalk 22:32, 22 June 2015 (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:National days[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: do not merge. MER-C 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the two categories do not seem to differentiate. (No prejudice against creating a separate Category:Independence days‎ though.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant Keep - its attractive to merge them, but not all national days are 'holidays' in the sense of non-working days (e.g. St Georges Day in England) while others (Jump-up Day) are not national days. Ephebi (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the former more a matter of purging? If it's not a non-working day it should probably be in Category:Observances instead of Category:Holidays. As for the latter, I don't really see why Jump-up Day wouldn't be considered to be a national (holi)day. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but brutally prune They are not the same thing, but many normal national holidays or "observances" have been added here. The "national day" is when all the embassies abroad host a big party for diplomats from other countries (will do for a definition). "Independence Day", "National Day", July 4th, Bastille Day etc etc. One per country. Oh, we have an article National Day. I've cleared out a load of crap, mostly American, like National Ice Cream Month. When all that has gone the cat is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And when are the Independence days of say France, Japan, and the UK? The diplomatic party is actually a good test, & should be added to the article. The talk page shows some mild confusion, which a clearer article would sort out. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not every country has an independence day. No problem at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But every country has a National Day. Ask any diplomat. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2015 (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/2015_June_19&oldid=1074815050"