Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27[edit]

Category:Blade (comics) 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#Category:Blade (comics) television series. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There has been only one actual Blade tv series. JDDJS (talk) 23:41, 27 August 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:1990 International League season[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16 more categories covering 1994-2009
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT
I don't have any conceptual problem with this granular breakdown since it works fine for the Major Leagues. But every single one of these categories contains just 1 article, such as 1990 International League season, so this approach muddles navigation. (2008 and 2009 also contain a few templates that are better grouped here.) A double upmerge is not needed since all of the articles are already in Category:International League seasons. No objection to recreating any of these if 5 or so articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Nick22aku as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Baseball. – RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this is kept at all, it needs "Baseball" as a disambiguator, as I cannot believe that no other sport has an international league. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the dab, there is no other sport with the name. The rest are all organizations of various types. While certain sports are "International" they don't name the leagues that way. The IL was only called that because there were teams in Canada at one time, and they'd used up a lot of other choices already. MSJapan (talk) 16:47, 2 September 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:Fictional Detroit Police Department detectives[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
I don't have any conceptual problem with these categories since they work fine for New York City, but these categories only contain two articles total: RoboCop and Axel Foley. There is a sub-genre of cop movies set in Detroit but few of the characters would be individually notable so the growth potential here is limited. No objection to recreating either category if 5 or so articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Soxman07 as the category creator and I added this discussion to the Detroit Task Force. – RevelationDirect (talk) 18:19, 27 August 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:LGBT beaches[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-item WP:SMALLCAT with little prospect for expansion. While certainly there are some beaches in the world which are popular with LGBT beachgoers, there are few if any notable public beaches which are LGBT-oriented per se. But the latter is what it would take to make "LGBTness" appropriately WP:DEFINING of a beach — the only beaches out there that would really satisfy that criterion are the private beaches of LGBT-oriented vacation resorts, but such a beach would be very unlikely to have the independent notability necessary to get a standalone Wikipedia article at all. Public beaches are not defined by the fact that some of their users might be LGBT, however, which means there really aren't other beaches that could be added to expand this. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Non-defining.Rathfelder (talk) 08:41, 6 September 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:LGBT terms[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: superceded by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2#Terms to terminology. NAC Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per many other similar categories (e.g. those for books, films, music, etc.), consensus has clearly established that the category system needs to maintain a better distinction between "LGBT" for people and "LGBT-related" for inanimate objects and concepts that are related to the LGBT community but don't technically have their own innate sexual orientation. Further, as currently named this category could easily be misunderstood as including only sexual identity labels like "gay" or "lesbian" or "bisexual" or "transgender" themselves — but in reality it also contains related concepts, such as "beefcake magazine", "kiki", "outing", "poppers", "queer baiting" and "throw shade", which are not labels for people. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Toward Eventual Deletion/Rename if Kept Really the titles of all Wikipedia articles are a "term" so I'd favor diffusing the contents of this category into the appropriate LGBT sub-category for what the term actually means and phasing out this category. (That's not to say that there might not be a viable category for LGBT and Language though with the often coded meaning, like Pronoun game.) No objection to the proposed name if the category is kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge (e.g. articles like Circuit party aren't about linguistics). Neutral on rename. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these articles, or the subset I perused, are not about the linguistic origins of these terms, but the concepts they label ("closet" talks about hiding one's homosexuality; "outing" talks about disclosing homosexuality of someone in the closet), these are not like our articles on fuck or shit which talk about the term, derivation, usage, etc. not about sexual intercourse or feces. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge to Category:LGBT, i.e. only merge articles and subcats that are not otherwise in the LGBT tree. After this merge, the category can be deleted, per previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT terminology I suggest renaming to LGBT terminology as part of my approved proposal [here], which aims to changes all "terms" categories into "terminology". CN1 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 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:Drama novels[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a new category, with the explanation "Novels in the drama genre". The page Drama (genre) redirects to a page about film & TV which starts, "Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance." It does not make sense to me to apply this to novels. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep' Drama means dramatic, these novels are dramatic and goodreads.com lists them as such. Darunia02 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – categories should be based on a defining characteristic intrinsic to the article. An external list such as goodreads is not at all suitable. Oculi (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator and Oculi. When a category creator's Talk page has multiple warnings for genre changes at multiple articles, it's all the more reason to take a hard look at what he's doing. The new Category:War action films and Category:War thriller films, on the August 26 log, also created by Darunia02, should be deleted as well. Be aware Darunia02 blanked the CfD of all three earlier today. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drama is a mode of performance in acted works such as films or television programs or stage plays, not a genre of written fiction. And Goodreads is a user-generated site where any user could invent a self-created genre, and claim works not elsewhere classified as being "of" that genre into it, so the existence of a "drama novels" list on Goodreads is not in and of itself a reliable source for its usefulness as a genre classification. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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:Globalization-related indices[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) 06:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, it largely overlaps with the target and it is hardly doable to draw a line here between "international" and "globalization-related", since none of these indices or rankings is exactly about globalization. No need to merge, all articles of this category are already in the target (or, if applicable, in a subcat or a parent of it). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Though I created this category, I accept Marcocapelle's argument here. Upon close look, these really are all international rankings, not indices of the process or characteristic of globalization, per se. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:10, 28 August 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:Outdoor sculptures in Kiev[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) 06:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, so far only one outdoor sculpture article, not only in Kiev but one in all of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if we get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. SMALLCAT is for categories that have "no potential for growth" so I'm not sure that applies here. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NARROWCAT or WP:OCLOCATION would work better as a policy basis. . RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is also in Category:Monuments and memorials in Kiev, which is far more appropriate and all it needs to be in, as that's what it was. The other three suggested cats are completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I'm not against a plain deletion by all means, the merge nomination was more like the most conservative proposal, considering the fact that the three targets are the parent categories of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 1 September 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_August_27&oldid=1090392161"