Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1[edit]

Category:Arrowverse multiverse[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: The result of this discussion is to merge the "multiverse" category into Category:Arrowverse. After doing some research, I noticed that there are no other "multiverse" categories on Wikipedia (with the exception of Category:Michael Moorcock's Multiverse, which is not a proof of anything, because the title of the book series itself was Michael Moorcock's Multiverse). In addition, I feel confident that when the nominator proposed deletion, he surely didn't want to cause a situation in which articles would be left without a category relating to the Arrowverse. Just to note that the second half of this nomination relates to the other discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no functional difference between this and Category:Arrowverse. 24.196.131.249 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes there is. The Flash 1990 series is not part of the Arrowverse proper, but rather exists on another earth in its multiverse. The same can currently be said for Supergirl. And it is also possible that more will be revealed regarding these other worlds and how they may include other existing media. So at this time, it is fine to keep. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Arrowverse. My rule in this is "one franchise: one category". If some items do not properly belong, they should be purged completely, not kept but out on a limb. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Arrow (TV series) spin-offs or something like that. This is a TV series category, not a universe category. Also nominate Category:Arrowverse for merger to Category:Arrow (TV series). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:02, 1 October 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:Songs written by Allen Ritter[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) 01:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category targets an article that has been previously deleted. DBrown SPS (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Allen Ritter was deleted via afd (and they were all written by many authors rather than Ritter alone). Oculi (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A songwriter is a defining attribute of a song, whether the songwriter is notable is a different point. The existence of a category is not defined by the existence of an article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, there is no WP guideline to support the nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while not a guideline it seems reasonable not to have categories based on afd'ed articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 12 October 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:Songs written by Cardiak[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) 01:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is categorized through a page with a name of a record producer, in which it is deleted. The category acts the same way. DBrown SPS (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Cardiak was deleted via afd (and they were all written by many authors rather than Cardiak alone). Oculi (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A songwriter is a defining attribute of a song, whether the songwriter is notable is a different point. The existence of a category is not defined by the existence of an article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while not a guideline it seems reasonable not to have categories based on afd'ed articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 12 October 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.

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stub categories and templates[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). The category is currently empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub categories have been created, deleted, then re-created by the same user (User:Modern Sciences), despite the lack of need and the incorrect formation of the stub templates and categories. Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stubs and Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic geography stubs have been nominated separately. Her Pegship (talk) 20:43, 1 October 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:Rolling animals[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) 01:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait of any organism : some animals roll, just as some animals are brown, run fast, or live at elevations above 4,000 feet. Trivial category that is better off discussed in the article Rotating locomotion in living systems. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too common, and how often do the have to roll? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ability is in fact not common by any means. As for the criterion, the existence of reliable citations showing that an animal ever purposely rolls for locomotion is a sharply defined criterion, met by a small set of animals. —swpbT 13:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that we have an entire (good!) article on the concept shows this isn't trivial, but a notable, well-discussed topic. -- Tavix (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Membership is finite, well-defined, and non-arbitrary, unlike the examples in the nomination above. Most animals decisively cannot or do not get around by rolling. For those that do, and have been noted to do so, the characteristic easily meets WP:CATDEF, as the ability is, in fact, markedly rare and highly relevant to an understanding of those animals' lifestyles. One can imagine a dozen ways this category may be useful to readers. —swpbT 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The real problem with this category is that some of the content is unrelated to the content of the main article (a good one), which is about locomotion: hedgehogs and armadillos roll up as a defence mechanism, not as a means of moving. Similar (though different) objections apply to other members. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Animals capable of rotating locomotion and purge articles that don't belong, per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 12 October 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:Influential sport horse sires[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:Sport horse sires. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm wondering what's the criteria for calling a sport horse sire "influential", and whether it's not POV to call a horse as influential. The Evil IP address (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Sport horse sires. That would take out the potential for POV, although from what I can see, most of these horses sired offspring that competed in international competition. White Arabian Filly Neigh 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like this idea better than deleting. Furthermore, we wouldn't have to think whether these horses are "influential enough" for categorisation. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Sport horse sires. Agree with White Arabian Filly. Oculi (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Sport horse sires. Per White Arabian Filly's proposal for removing POV language. Dimadick (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sport horse sires. All thoroughbreds are in fact descended from four 18th century sires. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 9 October 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_October_1&oldid=1074817327"