Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

April 25[edit]

Category:PlatinumGames Inc. games[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:PlatinumGames games. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article at PlatinumGames (PlatinumGames Inc. redirects there). Alternatively, "PlatinumGames games". The vast majority of other game company categories omit words like "Inc.", "Co.", and "LLC" (see Category:Video games by company). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with "games games" for Marcocapelle's rationale czar 15:28, 7 May 2016 (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:North Korean film directors[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) 04:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two occupational categories, of which one is completely empty and the other contains only the empty first category. Normally I'd have speedied these C1, but the creator tagged both with the {{empty category}} template — however, that template is only intended for use on maintenance categories in projectspace, whose contents may be variable because such categorization is intended to be temporary, and is not permitted for use on end-user content categories to create an exemption from having to have actual content. Which means this is not a correct or valid use of the template, and thus does not render the categories keepable. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are actually articles to be filed in them. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like a turning point of a career, in Korea. The CfD was fun-packed. The content, still intact. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:49, 26 April 2016 (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:Labor and demographic economics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only two child categories without room for expansion. (Note: the target category has been nominated to be renamed to Category:Subfields of economy). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The two terms are used sometimes together so it is not OR ([1]) but we should have a referenced parent article first, and the usage doesn't seem that common. Can't think of a good reason to keep it without a parent article present.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose: We have a coherent classification system generally used by the economics profession, and these arbitrary changes are just messing things up. JQ (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is based on the JEL classification codes, which is the method of classification used across all economic journals. We can argue whether it's appropriate for the JEL codes to lump labor and demographic economics together, but we absolutely should not deviate from JEL in the Category:Economics by specialty. JEL is the industry-standard way to classify by speciality, so it's useful to our readers to keep it as-is. ~ RobTalk 00:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, on the use of JEL codes in WP categorization, see also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree those are exceptions, given that they stem from a requirement of the JEL to classify everything in a subcategory. We do not have such a restriction. ~ RobTalk 06:26, 21 June 2016 (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:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy[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:Philosophy by topic. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To set it apart from Category:Philosophy of science.
I'd rename Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy to Category:Philosophy by topic. fgnievinski (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:, @Fgnievinski:: After much thought I'd like to share my current ideas with you.
By the way, the only answer I got from the WikiProject:Philosophy so far is "Both seem to be sub-fields of philosophy". Not helpful.
I don't think a rename to Philosophy by subject area does much good. Let the name as is, but let's look at the subcats in detail.
Updated the rationale CN1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC) CN1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I noticed you changed the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (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:Twincest in film[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 to both Category:Films about twins and Category:Incest in film. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem likely to ever become a sizable category. Not significantly different from Category:Incest in film. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2016 (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.

Major League Baseball draft picks[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) 00:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 30#Category:Seattle Mariners draft picks. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All All of the sources used about individual baseball players prominently feature the details of the team that drafted that player. See [2], [3], [4] for examples. We use categories to track where a baseball player was born, where they played baseball in college and for every team they've played on in the minor leagues and major leagues; Surely we should be tracking the equally defining details of which team drafted them. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussion. The fact that Doug Fister was initially drafted by the San Francisco Giants is relevant but not defining. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this is rehashing the previous discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 26 April 2016 (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:Cliometrics[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) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Category may be recreated if more content becomes available. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Cliometrics is a derivation/variety of Econometrics, only more focused on history. The econometrics article needs expansion to include and describe it. Moreover, cliometrics is not part of the JEL classification codes system. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (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:Piccadilly[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: except for the subcategory, it largely consists of companies and institutions that have their address on Piccadilly, London. I don't think Wikipedia should serve as an address book. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes little difference to me, I think Category:Piccadilly is perfectly encyclopedic IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 25 April 2016 (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:Television series by Nelvana[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Corus got its own TV category when it acquired Shaw Media, now its time to merge the smaller Nelvana category into the Corus category, since all of Corus's Animation is created by Nelvana. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not time to merge the Nelvana category into the Corus one. As has been pointed out to you before, the WP:DEFINING characteristic of a television series, for the purposes of "television series by production company" categorization, is the name that was on the shingle at the time the show was in production. A corporate merger does not automatically force the wholesale reshuffling of shows out of the existing category for the company that actually produced them and into the category for their original production company's new parent company — a considerable number of the shows in the Nelvana category ended production anywhere up to 30 years before the Corus takeover, and thus are not, have never been and will never be Corus properties. It's acceptable for the Nelvana category to be filed as a subcategory of the Corus category — but a merger of the two is not appropriate, because many of the shows in the Nelvana category ended production before Corus bought Nelvana and thus do not belong in a Corus category. Oppose, and stop this tendentious bullcrap. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bearcat, while I mostly agree with your reasoning, could you avoid using abusive language (bullcrap) about other editor's opinions? Per Wikipedia:Civility: "Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over." Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per our List of Nelvana programs, the Nelvana category includes (or should include) creations from the 1970s to 2010s. No reason to negate 40 years of history. Corus Entertainment is a relatively recent company, formed in 1999. It has acquired the rights to several old properties, but it is unclear if it has actually produced original television series. Its article does not mention any. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please merge: Corus does not produce animated shows under just its own brands anymore, just Nelvana, and Canadian Kids TV brands like YTV, Teletoon, and Treehouse, Corus acquired Shaw Media on April 1st, and got a lot of content, now i want to buy DHX Media, and Entertainment One, when Corus acquired Nelvana, it got the rights to a lot shows mede from to 1970s to 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anymore" is not the salient characteristic of the category. "At the time the show was in production" is. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (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.

Rivers and canals[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rivers and canals of Ljubljana to Category:Rivers of Ljubljana
Propose splitting Category:Rivers and canals of Saint Petersburg to Category:Rivers of Saint Petersburg and Category:Canals of Saint Petersburg
Rationale: We have no other categories which group these bodies of water together in such way. Note that in the case of Ljubljana, the category only contains rivers; I'm not opposed to creating a canal category there should there be enough to justify it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've created the category 'Rivers and canals of Ljubljana' instead of 'Rivers of Ljubljana' because it includes the canal Mali Graben (a natural canal, in any case not defined as a river but as a creek). There are at least two other canals in Ljubljana: the Gruber Canal [sl] and Curnovec [sl], both notable. However, as long as we don't have articles on all the three, I don't see a particular need to split the category. --Eleassar my talk 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Eleassar: The English Wikipedia article on Canal begins with "Canals and navigations are human-made channels for water ..." I think there might just be a translation issue here. Which river/creek/"canal" is the one at question here? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar:A creek is still a river; and for something, in English, to be called a "canal" requires that it be human-made. Based on this, Mali Graben is a river and not a canal. As I explicitly stated, I'm not opposed to subsequent creation of a canal category, should it be appropriate - only that, as of right now, the category only contains rivers. Note my Saint Petersburg nomination, included here, what I would have done if there had been an article about a canal in the Ljubljana category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you sure? (a source would be welcome - stream defines creeks/brooks as small to medium, and rivers as large) If so, then it is not a problem. Gruber Canal (a canal dug to drain the Ljubljana Marshes) is of particular interest/notability here. Or should it be 'Gruber Channel'? --Eleassar my talk 11:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Eleassar may be thinking of "channel". There are channels on the surface of Mars, but not canals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Let's keep canals separate. If streams are an issue, then you could use 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana', as per Category:Rivers and streams of Denmark...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. Then when the article 'Gruber Canal' is created, we put it in the category 'Canals of Ljubljana'. The category should be named 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana' then (to include Mali Graben). --Eleassar my talk 08:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that we're on the same page with the terminology. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely clear in the later part of this discussion whether the target should be 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana' or 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana'. The former name fits better in the category tree (see Denmark example as mentioned in the discussion, or the sibling US category). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2016 (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:European Car of the Year[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OC in general
Right now this category only contains the namesake article and the magazine that gives it out (Stern) so I'm not really sure what the intent was when this was created in 2014. Whatever the history, this award seems undefining to the winning cars (Toyota Prius, Ford Focus, etc.) so I don't see any room for growth here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ollieinc as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (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:BCCMA Award winners[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/listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and, for the parent category only, WP:SMALLCAT
The British Columbia Country Music Association is very enthusiastic about supporting local artists. Rick Tippe has "has won more than 25 awards" from the BCCMA while, in 1993, Farmer's Daughter won "Entertainer of the Year, Group of the Year, as well as Song and Single of the Year". That's not surprising since the organization gives out 37 different awards every year (source) and have a limited pool of potential recipients to give them to. (While I don't think this is defining for a category, I listified the contents here in the article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Earflaps as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject British Columbia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (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/2016_April_25&oldid=1138409510"