Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Sanctions[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; re-create as redirect to Category:International sanctions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (that is in plenty of other categories), has no parent categories and has some unusual category text ("...we reallu do need it as the article deals among other issues with..."). Do we really need this category? DexDor (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. We already have a Category:International sanctions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open - I created the category. For whatever reason I did not see International sanctions; my problem was that the article deals in part (but rather extensively) with sanctions in general, apart from just against Iraq and as a result of the Ukraine invasion, which was all that I saw. I would be content with changing that category to "international sanctions" if that is the best thing to do. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat-redirect to Category:International sanctions. This will prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this seems like a good idea to me Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 13 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:Bramfelder SV[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) 05:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just one (eponymous) article and no parent category tags this category is not performing any useful purpose. DexDor (talk) 22:46, 9 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:Christian worship[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, different denominations use a different term (either worship or liturgy) for a very similar concept. Rather than having different categories for every term, this proposal suggests to combine the both terms in one category name. The proposal definitely does not suggest renaming any of the child categories of the nominated categories. See also this earlier discussion and this recent discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both per rationale in previous discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We need to stop trying to split everything unnecessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 12 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:Electric power transmission systems by continent[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 07:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
  • Propose creating:
Nominator's rationale: The definition of "systems" is rather obscure, and tends to compartmentalize individual parts of an infrastructure that actually belong to a single national or even continental system. While I already created a catch-all parent level Category:Electric power transmission by continent, this should mostly be about infrastructure, and the proposed names are better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country. PanchoS (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I'm absolutely okay with the alt merge you're suggesting. Note to the closing admin: The older categories should be renamed to replace the ones I created. --PanchoS (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marcocapelle. We do not need a split, whether as systems or infrastructure. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to the nominator's proposal, oppose proposal by Marcocapelle. These categories belongs now under the electric power infrastructure tree. The tern electric power transmission is a broader term, it means all parts of the process and therefore can't be categorized anymore under infrastructure. E.g., electric power transmission should in that case involve also electric power transmission system operators (TSOs) which are companies, not infrastructure. Therefore, I am against of merging and think that instead of the proper categorisation tree should be developed. Beagel (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose procedurally. We need to consider the entire tree of Category:Electric power transmission systems if we're looking at the "systems" naming. Just looking at the by continents articles makes little sense. If we aren't renaming the parent category, we should keep these names as-is for consistency. No comment on the merging proposal, but I think it would be much cleaner to handle this all at once when dealing with the whole tree, so I'd rather put that off as well. ~ RobTalk 06:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an objection per se against Electric power transmission systems, it merely seems a case of WP:SMALLCAT. Upmerge to parents, in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob: You're free to have your opinion, but this is no way procedurally contestable. I purposely didn't nominate Category:Electric power transmission systems as it contains a totally different kind of articles that may (or might not) be "systems", but either way have to be discussed separately. All I can do in response to your objection, is explicitly proposing Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure to be created (see abvove), though category creations don't have to be proposed. It goes without saying that a missing parent category is created. Category:Electric power transmission systems, supposed to contain actual "transmission systems" would be left unchanged, unless merged in the course of a separate nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: Wait, was you original nomination to remove this from the systems tree entirely? Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing that these children of the systems tree were to be renamed because the "systems" name is not clearly defined. Was your nomination based on something else? ~ RobTalk 20:26, 22 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:Electric power transmission systems 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 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: I can't figure out why we would restrict these to transmission "systems" if the subcategories anyway contain their operators, along with incidents etc., and as long as the natural parent Category:Electric power transmission by country doesn't exist. We're thereby artificially excluding regulatory bodies, laws concerning electrical power transmission etc. We should have per-country categories for the whole topic first, before possibly subdividing by actual "systems" or other subtopics.
Alternatively, we can rename all to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by country (better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country, as per precedent Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in India) and create the above proposed category scheme Category:Electric power transmission by country as an additional catch-all level. --PanchoS (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the current limited size of these categories we can better have broad inclusion criteria, so I like the original proposal better than the alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I do. I just tried to avoid losing any information, so the nomination wouldn't be opposed on those grounds. --PanchoS (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We do not need to include "systems". It does no harm when category names are short. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories belongs now under the electic power infrastructure tree. The tern electric power transmission is a broader term, it means a process and therefore can't be categorized anymore under infrastructure. E.g., electric power transmission should in that case involve also electric power transmission system operators (TSOs) which are companies, not infrastructure. Therefore, I am not against for creating Electric power transmission by country categories, but the current Electric power transmission systems by country categories should be kept for more systematic approach. Beagel (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my previous comment, it seems like I've been confused with the nomination just above. The country categories are quite decently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move incorrectly categorized content (e.g. operators and incidents) to Category:Electric power transmission in Asia etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose procedurally. See my comment above. We need to look at the parent category as well. Without one big nomination examining the whole tree, I can't support renaming these country categories away from their parent category's naming scheme. ~ RobTalk 06:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good solution and it improves the overall Energy by country categories tree. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: Did you mean withdrawing is a good solution, or the original proposal? You !voted Oppose above. --PanchoS (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. My comment was about creating the missing level Category:Electric power transmission in X. Beagel (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: There's nothing wrong with a Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in the United States (etc.) subcategory, as long as there is enough content in Category:Electric power transmission in the United States (etc.), and I currently don't see that happening for any other country. But how about a dual upmerge of Category:Electric power transmission systems in Germany (etc.) to Category:Electric power transmission in Germany (etc.) and Category:Electric power infrastructure in Germany (etc.)? --PanchoS (talk) 11:34, 25 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:Eros in ancient Greece[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:Sexuality in ancient Greece. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is ambiguous and may mean god Eros as well. The category's content basically reflects eroticism. The main article for this is Ancient Greek eros, so an alternative title could be Category:Ancient Greek eros which is currently a soft redirect. Brandmeistertalk 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom This is a category about sexuality and erotic materials, not Eros the deity. Dimadick (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece, not because the proposed name of the nomination might be wrong, but simply because the alternative name fits better in the existing Sexuality tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to figure out what target is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:45, 9 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:Paintings by national location[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:Paintings by country of location. This is an incremental improvement but probably not a final solution to this category tree. Everyone agrees the current name is unclear. There's disagreement over whether appropriate categorization is by country of creation or country of location, but the current scope is country of location. There's no clear consensus to rescope. This close is without prejudice against future focused nominations to discuss deletion or rescoping. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category on Wikipedia that seems to be named "by national location", as far as I can tell. It is for categorizing articles on individual paintings by their physical location by country, and is child to Category:Arts by country. It subcategories, such as Category:Paintings in United States, are children to Category:Arts in the United States, which is part of Category:Categories by country. Through I feel that "by national location" is perhaps a bit more clear, we have a dilemma: rename for standardization or consider introducing an entirely new tree for many other concepts that would be "by national location". And considering that we have Category:Sculptures by country, and so on, which work pretty well, I think we should just rename this outlier and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For Now Let's standardize the odd man out. If you want to come back later with a broader rename, I'm open to it. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paintings are different from most "by country" categories, because they can easily be moved and because they don't have any specifically national association, other than where they were created. Most other subjects with lots of articles either can't be moved (Category:Cities by country) or have specific national associations (Category:People by country, Category:Submarines by country) that apply regardless of current location. Consider Mona Lisa, which is of Italian origin and is currently located in France. It belongs in Category:Italian paintings (it's a member of the subcategory Category:Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci) as well as Category:Paintings in France (it's buried in that category tree), both of which would fit into "Paintings by country", but because of the distinction between country of creation and country of current location, those two are in the separate Category:Paintings by nationality and Category:Paintings by national location categories. This proposal would effectively merge the two (if "national location" becomes "country", why shouldn't "nationality"?) and thereby create confusion. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italian paintings is properly categorized by "paintings by nationality". That there is some miscategorization of "by nationality" and "by country" container categories is a problem to fix, yes, but argument that this is intended to merge nationality and country categories is a straw hat. We are just standardizing the "odd one one" in naming here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if renamed it should become clear what we mean with "by country". Is it country of creation (which sounds more intuitive), or is it current location (as apparently intended by this category). In the former case I would suggest renaming to Category:Paintings by country of creation, in the latter case I wonder if the proposed rename is unambiguous enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Paintings by country of creation. I agree with Marco that "by country" is confusing because it does not specify whether the country is that where the painting was made or where the painting is currently located. Neutralitytalk 19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like User:Neutrality's clarification, it seems like a good compromise. Through in this case it should be "Paintings by country of location", I think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm guessing that User:Neutrality suggests not only to rename but also to re-purpose the category. It would indeed make more sense to categorize by country of creation than by country of current location because the latter may vary too much to categorize. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it would be a rename and a repurpose (or clarification of purpose). Neutralitytalk 13:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think a rename/repurpose (by CFD) that then relies on editors to recategorize articles to fit the new name (leaving articles miscategorized in the meantime) is a good idea. It would be better to (after suitable discussion) create new by-country-of-creation categories then delete the old by-country-of-location categories (unless it can be shown that the number of paintings that would be miscategorized would be very small). DexDor (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that Neutrality's suggestion has consensus (i.e. rename to "by country" but clarify which country that is meant to be). We still need to figure out if we want to repurpose this to be "country of creation" or "country of location", however. Either way, this will require purging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename proposed in nomination as it makes the meaning of this category less clear - assuming it is intended to be categorizing by (current) location (not by where they were painted or what they depict). How about renaming to Category:Paintings by country of location or Category:Paintings by current location? DexDor (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on DexDor's earlier comment just above the relist line so I would be okay with renaming to Category:Paintings by country of location as a temporary solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where a painting was created is usually not defining, who created it is; where it is depicting may be defining - if the depiction is of the place and not merely some person (or some fruit and flowers) in some room that could just as well be anywhere; which country the painting is in today is a current category and is not defining - when it's sold or moved no doubt the category will change (not added like a sportsman who changes teams) showing its impermanence and triviality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez has a good point here, it's actually surprising that none of us came up with this thought before, so I wouldn't object to deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 10 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:Incest in television[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 but purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category really necessary? —Prisencolin (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category is for tv shows that discuss/depict incest - not a notable genre. I would have suspected that a category with this title would have something to do with incest occurring in television - like some station owners hooking up with their siblings or folks getting into their (pre-flat panel) tv to commit incest, but alas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an awful lot of junk in this category, it seems to me. Is Arrested Development (TV series) even "about incest"? I don't see any reference to it in the article. Maybe works like Something About Amelia could be moved to the incest in film category, as it is a TV movie. Do we have television works about incest that aren't films? I don't have time right now to completely review the category contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a stretch to say that Arrested Development is "about" incest. There is a recurring theme/joke that a young character is infatuated with his cousin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. Thanks. Well, I do see that there are entries such as Zaguri Imperia, where the theme appears more pronounced. While I have no particular interest in, say, the Family Guy episode articles -- where every time McFarlane and co. make a joke about x, we're supposed to categorize it? -- I must say I don't see a rationale for outright deletion, based on what is 'really necessary'. At most you'd have to upmerge to Category:Incest in fiction to categorize TV series and such that genuinely address incest. This category has siblings for film and theatre productions. I don't understand why the Incest in foo structure would be uniquely unsuited for a TV category, while those siblings aren't being touched. My slight preference would be to weakly oppose, and clean up the category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If a TV series is centred on an incestuous relationship, it may be worth having a category, but not if it is merely incidental, or involves love between cousins (which is not incest in my country). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There have been a few studies over the past year suggesting that incest and subgenres like the fauxcest genre are gaining a very high amount of viewership, largely driven by female interest. This indicates that this category will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:51, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_9&oldid=1075704782"