Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Category:Screenshots of SNES 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. The1337gamer (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2017 (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:Verification 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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know where to merge this. First of all, the only occupant in this category that possibly fits the title is Template:User degree/PhD verified, which suggests that this category should be deleted. But the category name may be useful. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I probably created this shortly after the Essjay controversy and concomitant with User:Avraham/Wiki of Trust. A decade later, this is probably no longer necessary. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have removed an archived discussion page which was unintentionally in the category. The four user pages are also incorrectly in the category, having apparently copied the category code from a template. Three out of four are blocked users anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 8 May 2017 (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:Dominican Republic people of Sephardic-Jewish descent[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 (and purge if needed). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to CFD 2017 March 29 where the sibling category for Ashkenazi descent was merged. Of the current category members, only Federico Henríquez y Carvajal mentions Sephardic origin in the text (it has a citation for this); and Camila Henríquez Ureña is already also in the Sephardi Jews parent. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The target appears not to exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete distant descent is neither defining nor material. Looking at the category's entries, only *one* has a mention of Jewishness in the body of the article. So much for being verifiable or defining... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - too detailed.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 11 May 2017 (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:Pundettes[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: consensus not to keep the existing category, so merge to Category:American political pundits. The current contents are listed in the article pundette. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a small handful of political commentators who happen to be female, on a term that's ordinarily used to pejoratively set them apart from other pundits on the basis of an NPOV-violating perception that their gender and their ideology don't correspond the "women are all liberals" way conventional wisdom would expect — if you think what I'm getting at here is Kellyanne Conway and Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, then yes, you win the prize. As always, we categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics of the subject, not on other people's opinions about them — a list of women who've been called this is fine for inclusion in the article, but it is not an appropriate basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have Pundette, why not the matching category? This is not merely actresses vs actors, these are a self-identified group of right-wing female pundits. Their identity, their grouping, their term. The pejorative version of would be right-wing fruitbatte, not pundette. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not their own term for themselves; it's a pejorative that was applied to them which some of them accept in a "reclaiming" way, the same way I get to call myself a fag if I want to but nobody else gets to categorize me that way because it's fundamentally not a neutral term. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you're in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians. I might agree that there's some level of "reclaiming" here (I don't know the history, only how it presents today). But once reclaimed, that category goes into use and is visible to all. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Internal categories for Wikipedians' user pages are not judged by the same standards as content categories for articles — and "LGBT" was never a pejorative term in the first place. So this is not an equivalent situation to what I have on my user page. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change I agree with Bearcat that the category is not appropriate in that it is a derogatory and dismissive term. I'm not sure what it should be changed to, however. I would say that Tomi Lahren is in the same category. Her article describes her as a "conservative political commentator", but I don't think that really captures the category. Any thoughts on a better term?--Nowa (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the ungendered and unpejorative Category:American political pundits already exists, so there's no real need to rename this per se. Some of these women are already in it while others aren't, so some caution should be undertaken to ensure that women who aren't in that one get readded to it in the process of deleting this one, but the existing category is sufficient and we don't need to maintain a separate subcat for the "pundettes" under any other name. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this group, female, right-wing, and self-identifying as pundettes, is a distinct sub group within that. Noam Chomsky is a pundit, but he's no Kellyanne Conway. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly live with "pundit", but as Andy Dingley points out, this is a distinct category within that larger category. Is this more than a US phenomenon? --Nowa (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. They're right wingers, by the group's definition. An invented name still needs to reflect that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some further thought I would say this is a too narrow intersection, as it concerns occupation x gender x political view. That triple intersection could be defining for politicians whose political views are of primary interest, perhaps, but not for occupations on the side. I'm supporting the alternative to merge to Category:American political pundits. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2017 (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.

Organizations based in Puerto Rico[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationale: As a US territory, categories related to Puerto Rico should use American English. Note also that most of the categiory tree uses the US spelling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 6 May 2017 (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:Regional restaurant chains in the United States[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, i.e. don't merge, but without objection to an early rename nomination that may clarify the purpose of the category better. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Generalized category that duplicates Restaurant chains in the United States. Both consist of restaurant companies that consist of more than one restaurant in many different locations. I think the whole category tree should be merged, if this CFD is successful. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment by the definition, there should not be overlap. Looking at several articles I see one on a chain that that is just in the Chicago area; another that is just in the West Coast. These are regions within the US; this does not depend on how many restaurants are in the chain. Contrast that with national chains that are in many parts of the country. 'Region' is the key word. Reading more, I see confusion in the wider non-US category tree. Does 'region' mean 'region within a country' or 'region within the world'? This needs to be clarified, for sure, with renaming or more. Hmains (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both categories are well populated, so that some split is desirable. Perhaps the regional one needs splitting my region. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinguishing trait here was meant to be "restaurant chains that operate in one specific region of the United States but are unknown elsewhere" (e.g. DoubleDave's Pizzaworks, which has only one location anywhere outside of Texas and even that one is still in a state adjacent to Texas) vs. "restaurant chains that operate fully nationwide" (e.g. McDonald's and Burger King and Denny's and the Olive Garden). I don't have a strong opinion either way about whether that's a useful basis for a category separation or not, but I just wanted to clarify that it's what was intended when the Category:Regional restaurant chains tree was initiated back in 2004. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there is enough difference to show the difference via our category structure. If kept, I will examine and move the articles to their proper category here. Hmains (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2017 (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:Financial history of the Netherlands[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. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there aren't any other financial history categories by country, there is not even a general financial history category. The economic history of the Netherlands category isn't so big that it needs diffusing by financial history. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I wonder about these when they came up in a previous discussion. Economic history is a recognised academic dispcipline; "financial history" is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (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:Financial system of the Dutch Republic[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 23:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is just a collection of terms in finance. Though perhaps "invented" in the Dutch Republic, they are not of the Dutch Republic (except Amsterdam Wisselbank). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2017 (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:Comcast SportsNet[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. – Fayenatic London 23:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: CSN is no longer necessarily the name of these networks, hence the main page is now titled based on the division itself. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2017 (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/2017_May_6&oldid=1146508926"