Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots[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. MER-C 03:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is very useful. Unlike Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes and Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art which anyone can go through, you can't with screenshots.
  1. VG articles usually only need one specific screenshot that shows gameplay, elements, only an editor who owns the game and understands what image would be needed can choose an appropriate one.
  2. Native resolution and reduced size where applicable screenshots are best, anyone mass submitting would have difficulty doing this. (as shown by the warning on the page)
  3. Screenshots are not a priority when compared to actual text, structure, and reliable sources. Vaypertrail (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this is populated by template. You'd need to discuss with WP:WikiProject Video games to remove the switch from the project banner. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Populated solely by WikiProject banner, the WikiProject can decide to stop populating their own maintenance category or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't really understand the nominators rationale beyond stating that he personally doesn't find it useful. The fact that it's heavily used kind of negates that argument... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 9 March 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.

Greek sites by 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT (not part of a large tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree, the SMALLCAT exception doesn't apply because it's not part of a large overall structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with also putting some of these articles in the cities/colonies tree. But I don't think it's correct to remove them from the archaeological sites tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The bigger reason smallcat does not apply here is this is involving us in complex issues of historical accuracy, that are better dealt with in text than in broad yes/no categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 10 April 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:Ancient Greek sites in Montenegro[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 as empty. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its only member contains a site that has no ancient Greek connection (it's prehistoric). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile the one member has been removed, the category is empty now and I guess the category can be speedily deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 9 May 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.

Greek sites 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: merge as specified and to regional parents. MER-C 09:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT (not part of a large tree, since many Greek regions don't have their own category in this tree anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for spotting. I've changed the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 22 March 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:Ancient Greek sites in France[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. For the record, it currently contains only Category:Ancient Massalia, which as Peterkingiron says is within the Greek colonies tree. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles about the five cities in this tree (Agde, Antibes, Marseille, Monaco and Nice, they can be found in grandchild Category:Massalian colonies) mention an archaeological site with ancient Greek remains. The article about Marseille mentions there's hardly any Greek things left after the Romans took over. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these were ancient Greek sites in France, whether archaeological remains are substantial or not is not the controlling issue, otherwise now that Nineveh is kaput, are we going to remove whatever categories it was previously in? no. Categories are not temporary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this comment. This is the tree of Category:Archaeological sites, so the question whether archaeological site is a defining characteristic of an article should be the controlling issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 10 March 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:DC Comics' shared film universe 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussions involving a similar category, Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, here and a second one here Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 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.

Orthodox buildings‎[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The nominated categories seem to serve the same purpose as the target categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Serbian Orthodox churches is nominated for speedy renaming (C2C) to Category:Serbian Orthodox church buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid possibility of reader assuming that it contains all of the orthodox buildings in Russia as opposed to only those orthodox buildings of the Russian Orthodox church. There are other orthodox buildings in Russia that are not affiliated to the Russian Orthodox church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose " Category:Serbian Orthodox churches " clearly this isn't about congregations or denominations, which "church" can refer to. Support moving both to "church buildings" -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you support the Serbian nomination if the speedy rename goes ahead. For your information, the speedy rename has been put on hold pending this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 March 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:YouTube personalities[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: Reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not much difference between a 'personality' and 'celebrity' of something. JacktheHarry (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These definitely should be merged, as there's no substantive distinction between the two — but to be honest, I'd personally prefer that the merger go the other way, with "personalities" being the wording that gets kept and "celebrities" being the one that gets tossed, because to my ears "celebrity" has a bit of a POV edge to it (i.e. how do we quantify what specific level of fame a person has to demonstrate before they go from being a "regular" musician, actor or whatever to being a "celebrity" musician, actor or whatever?) Reverse merge. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge personalities seems the better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to personalities. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge No preference on the title, but this is just 1 category. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:57, 11 March 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:Orthodox churches in Ukraine‎[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With churches versus church buildings, it seems the two categories have the same purpose, the rationale for merging in this direction is C2C per Category:Church buildings by country. With Orthodox versus Eastern Orthodox, it's highly unlikely that a Ukrainian category will ever contain Orthodox content that is non-Eastern Orthodox (i.e. Oriental Orthodox) and is C2C to other countries in this region. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 7 March 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:The Brier[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. MER-C 03:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy.
  • Category:The Brier to Category:Tim Hortons Brier – C2D: per Tim Hortons Brier Tim! (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to speedy this category covers more than just the current sponsorship era, it covers the entire Men's Canadian National Curling Championship. The requested name implies only coverage for the current sponsorship era, not the preceding eras (Nokia Brier, Labatt Brier, etc) It also somewhat promotes a corporation's advertising. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article was decided at Talk:Tim Hortons Brier#Requested move (2012) Tim! (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category name was decided at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_19#Category:The_Brier ; also a 2012 decision, and it was to keep it different from the article name -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tim Hortons, while the current sponsor, is relatively recent. While I agree that the article should probably be at Tim Hortons Brier, I think this is one of the cases where consistency between the parent article and the category name is not required. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 2012 CFD and my comments at CFDS just prior to opening this 2015 CFD. The category should have a more inclusive name than just the current sponsorship era's name implying. That also happens to the be common name and short name for the entire event, "The Brier" (and not just the current sponsorship era) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per everybody; the category properly contains all content about the Brier, inclusive of the long period before Tim Hortons was the main corporate naming sponsor. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree, the Brier had a long history prior to Tim's. And I believe there's a precedent at Category:College football bowls, where categories for long-standing bowls have not been modified with the current sponsor's name. For example, Peach Bowl and not Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name should not include a sponsor, a good example of this is NCAA bowl games. The title remains constant but the article is updated with the respective sponsor. List_of_college_bowl_games Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:17, 12 March 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:Coniston[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 to Category:Coniston, Cumbria. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy to Coniston Water.
Oppose. As it is, this is a workably named category that we can happily categorise under both lakes and villages. It's arguably more correct in full, but it's still very common to refer to the lake as Coniston alone. If it were to be renamed as Coniston Water then we'd have to split that. What benefit would that convey? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose. I don't see why the main article is said to be Coniston Water, when the more general Coniston, Cumbria would be a better fit. I would support a rename to Category:Coniston, Cumbria. Oculi (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why add the disambiguation? Are we overwhelmed with Conistons? Is there any question of this being the primary Coniston? I oppose Coniston, Cumbria in particular because Cumbria is still a relatively recent invention as a county. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds would this be "the primary Coniston"? Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands this category is unclear whether it is for the village of Coniston, Cumbria or the lake Coniston Water. If split would be two very small categories. Tim! (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's a good thing - it can cover both. They're adjacent, this is a category for geographical location, that works fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why disambiguate? It's not as if we need it. Are there any other Conistons around anywhere else? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because Coniston has been a dab page since 2005, and is thus deemed to be ambiguous. Oculi (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many other Conistons — I personally grew up not in, but near enough to one of them (i.e. Coniston, Ontario) that I had an immediate "WTF?" reaction to this category name before investigating deeply enough to ascertain that it was meant for a different one. I grant that they aren't all notable enough to warrant their own independent categories — the one I grew up near is not an independent town or city in its own right anymore (although it once was, from 1934 to 1972), but is now merely a community within a larger city — but a village of 1,058 is not large or internationally prominent enough to claim "primary meaning" over other similarly-named topics (especially when at least one of them, Coniston, New South Wales, is verifiably larger than that.) But even more importantly, the village's article is located at Coniston, Cumbria, and the unmarked Coniston is a disambiguation page — and it's a core principle of category naming rules that the categories for a populated place need to be at the same level of disambiguation as the place's main article. If you're really that unsatisfied with "Cumbria" as the disambiguator, then you can always propose a different one at the article's talk page for discussion — and then if you get a consensus for another name, the category can be renamed again to follow that new alternative. But it's not internationally recognized as the primary meaning of Coniston, and thus doesn't get to claim the undabbed title. Rename to Category:Coniston, Cumbria — since almost everything in this category pertains to the village rather than the lake, the lake doesn't need its own separate standalone category — with no prejudice against revisiting this in the future if the village's article ever gets renamed. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 7 March 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:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies[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 consensus, and procedural close for Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches since it was not tagged. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems like both categories serve the same purpose: these are churches within Eastern Orthodoxy that are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Prefer downmerging over upmerging, "independent" sounds less POV than "noncanonical". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative because most of the content of the target is currently Russian, another possibility is:
Rename Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches to Eastern Orthodox independent churches in Russia
Rename Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies to Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches
Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the articles about churches in this category, it is never said that the church is 'noncanonical', at best it says that the church is 'not recognized as canonical'. That indicates a clear POV issue, in my opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 25 March 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:Million-selling singles in the United Kingdom[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 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Selling a million copies in a single country is a tremendous feat and I have no problem with it being recogized, which it is in the article List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom. However, the feat in and of itself is not a defining to the songs themselves. There is also similar categories based on sales of a certain number in Category:Singles certified by the British Phonographic Industry, the combination of which just tends to lead to overcategorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:45, 7 March 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_March_7&oldid=1138409072"