Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13[edit]

Category:Early Muslim conquests[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. I agree with the proposed change, but it would put the category at odds with the main article: Early Muslim conquests. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ISLAMIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, we should first rename the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 15 November 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:Muslim dynasties[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/2017 November 28#Category:Muslim dynasties. ℯxplicit 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ISLAMIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that MOS:ISLAMIC supports the proposed rename. Dynasties consist of people, people are Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposed change would alter the scope of the category. A "Muslim dynasty" is one whose rulers follow Islam; an "Islamic dynasty" is one that declares a caliphate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you come to that conclusion? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Presupposing that people are Muslims whereas concepts and objects are Islamic, an "Islamic dynasty" would be not just a succession of Muslim rulers but one that relates to Islamic tenets—i.e. a succession of caliphs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 24 November 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:Muslim secularism[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:Islam and secularism. ℯxplicit 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ISLAMIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (voted previously) Prefer the alternative rename over the nominated rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support that too! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:03, 26 November 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:Muslim martial arts[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. ℯxplicit 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ISLAMIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With those arguments, I would also support deletion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:01, 24 November 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:Catholic 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: rename. There is, at the very least, consensus that the current name of the category should follow convention. Further examination of its contents may take place separately. ℯxplicit 04:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Category:Christian terminology as well as equivalent categories of most other ideological entities. WP:Precise - otherwise, risk virtually including more than relevant. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the first three articles to the parent categories. The category consists of articles that have no relationship with each other. Many terms and terminology categories have been deleted before. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree with nominator's rationale. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (and purge - e.g. articles such as Diocesan priest aren't about terminology) or Delete (with no objection to Category:Catholic terminology being created for the few articles that are about terminology). The end result should be the same either way. DexDor (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge per nom and DexDor Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a slight purge. Just now sure where to draw the line. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor and Laurel Lodged: According to you, when purging, which articles should stay in the category? My view (as implied before) would be that only the first three articles would remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article is really only about a term (word) if there is a separate article (or articles) that covers the thing referred to by the term (e.g. Nigger / African Americans, Fuck / Sexual intercourse, BRD / Germany). I've checked a sample of the articles in this category and not found any others that belong in the category. Note: There are some (e.g. "An Episcopium is the Latin word for an episcopal palace...") which should be reworded per WP:REFERS. Articles like "A sacristy is a room for .." clearly don't belong in the category. DexDor (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Example Further to this, I've created the category Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church to contain Episcopium. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • disperse to more appropriate categories and delete. This is really a miscellany category; there are doctrines, papal statements, Vatican offices, heresies.... They aren't "terminology" except in the sense that anything one says in a Catholic context is terminology. The correct solution, it seems to me, is to move each to a more specific category if necessary and then delete this. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note though that we do maintain Category:Christian terminology, Category:Islamic terminology, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 16 November 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:Decatur Metropolitan Area[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: moved per C2B (disambiguation). Also I'm going to fix those badly formatted disambiguations on the pages, thanks for bringingn those to my attention. Turns out that's the required format by consensus at a RfC, at which I shake my head because gah that's horrible. The Bushranger One ping only 09:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Decatur, Alabama is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for cities named "Decatur." Both Decatur, Illinois and Decatur, Georgia have a higher daily average traffic volume.[1] [2] [3] Also, Decatur Metropolitan Area appears to have been moved to Decatur metropolitan area, Alabama years ago for this same reason. 146.229.240.200 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 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:Harricana Hydrological System[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for rivers and lakes that happen to be part of a common watershed. This was created in good faith by Mr. Guye because it appeared on Wanted Categories, so I'm not blaming him -- its presence on Wanted Categories results from a different user, Veillg1, who has a persistently disruptive habit of repeatedly trying to comprehensively overcategorize all rivers in Quebec by their "hydrological system". continuing even when he's asked to stop and invariably requiring an hour or more of work to clean up after him every time he goes on a redlinked-category bender. As always, we categorize water bodies by their geographic region (i.e. province or county), not by their relationship to each other. People simply aren't going to search for rivers or lakes this way. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, thank you for assuming good faith, as I was unaware of the history of those incoming links. Regarding your deletion rationale, I'm not sure that categorization of bodies of water by the overall water system they are a part of is a necessarily bad idea, but the way this category is named implies that the "Harricana Hydrological System" is the official name of the system, which would be incorrect and OR. Google Search shows that this terminology is not used frequently, if at all. If it were a real term, the 'Harricana hydrological system' would include not just rivers flowing in and out of it, but evaporated water, groundwater, water from runoff, any precipitation, etc. That is, we'd have to cover its whole water cycle. That is far too broad. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat and Mr. Guye. Not sure if there is a translation issue here from the creator of the articles that are being categorized here, possibly means watershed/drainage basin, but whatever, the use of the term hydrological system is not useful...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a translation issue, as there are several categories of "Système hydrologique de X" on fr (though generally at the level of an entire country rather than by individual river). Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 16 November 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:World snooker champions[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: split somehow, so rename to Category:Winners of the professional snooker world championship as a sub-category of Category:World champions in snooker, which is the pattern within Category:World champions in cue sports and some others. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar and clarity. There's no such thing as "world snooker", but World Snooker (capitalised) is a trademark and the snooker-specific marketing alias of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. This category encompasses non-WPBSA world champions, e.g. International Billiards and Snooker Federation ones, and winners of the Professional Snooker Championship (1927–1934), World's Professional Snooker Championship (1935–1940), and World Professional Match-play Championship (1952–57), plus various challenge matches in intervening years. WPBSA was founded in 1968. If a subcat specifically for WPBSA winners is desired, it would be Category:WPBSA World Snooker Champions (capitalised, since "WPBSA World Snooker Champion" is a formal title like "NBA All-Stars", and this pro league is actually named "World Snooker"; but "world champion" without being more specific is a common-noun phrase).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC); details added: 15:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure somehow -- Category:WPBSA World Snooker Champions with a see also for the amateur world championship of IBSA. We need to keep the amateurs out of the category for the professional sport. I suspect there was a long period before the sport went fully professional, but I will allow others to work out how properly to deal with the pre-professional era. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are all the snooker world championships I am aware of:
    1 Professional snooker world championship (traditionally any professional player could enter, but in recent years limited to tour players)
    • BACC (Billiards Association and Control Council; 1927–1952, 1964–1968)
    • PBPA (Professional Billiard Players Association; 1952–1957) – the de facto (but unsanctioned) world championship of the 1950s during a players dispute
    • WPBSA (World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association; 1969–present) – the WPBSA was the successor to the BACC when the amateur and professional game split
    2 Senior snooker world championship
    • WPBSA (technically a professional world championship but with an age restriction)
    3 Amateur snooker world championship
    • IBSF
    4 Junior snooker world championship
    • IBSF (technically an amateur world championship but with an age restriction)
    5 Ladies snooker world championship
    • WLBS (historically an amateur competition, but technically a pro-am these days now women are eligible for professional membership)
    6 Six-red snooker world championship
    • WPBSA (a professional tournament with an amateur leg)
I agree that the category name should be changed, and what we change it to depends on what we intend to do with it. If the name of the category were changed to "Snooker world champions" then it should encompass the winners of all six competitions. If you want to limit inclusion to the winners of the main professional title then "Professional snooker world champions" would be an intuitive choice, but would possible conflate the professional Championship, Six-reds and the Seniors. If you want to limit inclusion to the BACC/PBPA/WPBSA tournament (which is treated as a single lineage these days) then perhaps "Winners of the professional snooker world championship" is an option? Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all a matter of subcategorization. Please keep in mind that this has parent categories of Category:World champions in cue sports (as a subset) and Category:World sports champions (as a major world sport), so it needs a Category:Snooker world champions name at the snooker top level, sorted into subcats – if we want to bother with that. An argument could certainly be made for doing subcats by pro and amateur. Doing it by organisation is less useful, because they're often not competing organisations but successor ones, and only people intimately familiar with snooker's historical timeline would be able to make sense of it. Doing it that would way would also be a WP:SMALLCAT problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Category:World sports champions needs a rename to Category:World champions by sport to match Category:Sports champions by sport. Now listed here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a "snooker world champions" category, I am just pointing out that it would encompass all snooker world champions—pro and amateur, senior and junior etc. That would be fundamentally different to the current category which is explicitly defined on the category page as "shows people who have won the BA&CC/WPBSA World Snooker Championship (1927–present), and/or its World Professional Match-play Championship competing title (1952–57)." Your proposal effectively deletes the category in its current form and creates a new one with a different inclusion criteria. Now, that's a perfectly valid way of doing it, and I don't especially have a problem with that, but there is nothing to prevent us creating a completely new category "Category:Snooker world champions" and making "Category:World snooker champions" a sub-category of that, and renaming it per my suggestion above. This is how it could potentially be structured:
I think splitting it into a pro and amateur would be a bad way of doing it, because in the case of pros you would be conflating the professional world championship, the seniors and Six-Reds, which are all pro competitions. Likewise with amateur, you would be mixing amateurs, juniors and ladies. I am not saying one approach is better than the other—in truth I am ok with both——but there are a couple of options we can pursue here depending on how much differentiation we want between the world championships. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All that's fine for later discussion, but how to eventually subdivide the category ultimately has nothing to do with the current catch-all category being misnamed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but the category as it exists now is not a catch-all category. What is confusing me is that in your summary at the top you state "This category encompasses non-WPBSA world champions", but the description at the category itself explicitly states it is solely for the winners of the professional world championship, which is the BACC/PBPA/WPBSA tournament. This is just one tournament that has been goverend by several different bodies, but still has a single lineage. As it is currently utilised it does not include seniors or amateurs (IBSF) or 6-reds, so renaming it to "Snooker world champions" wouldn't be just renaming it, it would also redefine it. This proposal isn't just a rename, it is a replace i.e. we are replacing a category about the winners of just one tournament with a category about the winners of all snooker world championships i.e. pros, amateurs, seniors, juniors, ladies etc. I am not opposed to your proposal, I just want to make sure we are on the same page here, that you realise that your proposal is actually changing the definition of the category and will result in adding people like Allison Fisher and Jimmy White who have won the ladies and seniors respectively, who are currently excluded from the category as it operates now. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Betty Logan: Just for clarification, you don't object to widening the scope of the category, do you? Because if you don't object, we may just remove the headline and rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections at all to altering the scope of the category. I'm sorry about all the verbiage, I just wanted to clarify that SMcCandlish and other editors were aware that a consequence of this proposal would be that more players would be eligible to be added to the category, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with that. As you say if nobody objects we may as well just push on. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a difference that's not a difference, since if anyone wants to specifically categorize only WPBSA World Champions, then that'll just be a subcategory. I.e., the exact same result would happen by clarifying the name of the current category to be WPBSA-only, then creating a parent cat. inclusive of other snooker world champions; it needs to happen regardless, because there are more world snooker champions than WPBSA's, and they're not properly categorized as such at present.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept the underlying logic of your proposal which is why I am happy to support it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Main article is named List of world snooker champions, not "list of snooker world champions". Related tournament article is named World Snooker Championship, not Snooker World Championship. Try to rename the articles first, before the category. 178.92.150.212 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus on the same thing can form at any appropriate venue; there is no policy mandating a particular order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Keep a consistency with Category:World boxing champions, Category:World chess champions, Category:World darts champions, Category:World judo champions, etc. 185.146.122.109 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 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:Films about journalism[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_21#Category:Films_about_journalists. I believe it was now topic-banned editor Stefanomione who originally created the categories in 2007. They were merged to simplify navigation for our readers in 2009. Then in 2013, shortly before his indef ban on category creation, he recreated the merged category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 13 November 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:Malayalam short stories[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/2017 November 28#Category:Malayalam short stories. ℯxplicit 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to warrant a category. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 6 articles is about enough for a category. Anyway Malayalam is a language; it would be as inappropriate to merge it with Hindi as English literature with French. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parent categories, this intersection category is a bit over the top with the limited total amount of Indian short stories articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 21 November 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:Minor biblical figures[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, initially the category doesn't look small, but in fact all redirects redirect to the same two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The clue is in the name - minor (i.e. non notable). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This seems completely unhelpful to me, more of a maintenance category which one can get just as well by looking at the two articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Except the two main articles (lists) we have nothing but redirects, we should not be categorising redirects, as a search should take one straight to the redirect or the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no significant work is being made to expand or rework the category.Firstclass306 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 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:History of economic thought, methodology, and heterodox approaches[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. ℯxplicit 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and salt, recreation of an earlier deleted category (see this discussion) and it is a hodgepodge like before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete and salt -- This should be three categories, not one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 13 November 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:PythagoraSwitch[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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only two articles, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). Creator originally included Rube Goldberg machine, but I removed it per WP:CATDEF. —Farix (t | c) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 13 November 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:Space brothers[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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). It is questionable whether the article about song really belong in this category. —Farix (t | c) 10:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 13 November 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:Schizophrenia in TV 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content within either the Fictional portrayals ... or the Fictional characters ... categories to warrant a split by medium (television, film, books, comics, etc.). All of the articles are in other television-related categories, so a full upmerge is not required. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Small categories do not have to be subcategorized by medium. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 14 November 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.

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons[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: WP:SOFTDELETE for lack of explanation as to how or why these sub-categories by user are useful. Merge to parent Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons; they are populated by Template:Now Commons, which is written to use that category if a sub-cat for the reviewer does not exist. Any users who do require a sub-category as part of their workflow are free to re-create it. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First off, I want to point out that all of these are all empty. However, the {{emptycat}} template has been placed at the top, instructing administrators not to delete these categories as empty. Personally, I do no see any reason why these categories currently are exempt from the WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion criterion or any reason why they should be exempt going forward, but perhaps the category creator could shed some light on that. Regardless of that discussion, however, I think these categories set a poor precedent by establishing a category scheme with individual user's names in the categories. This is almost invariably a huge red flag that such a categorization scheme is a very bad idea (there are some exceptions, like sockpuppet categories). I'm not sure why it is helpful to group files by which user has reviewed them. Please note that I have not nominated the parent category, only the subcategories, pending an explanation as to how this is intended to be used. If they were not all empty I may have suggested merging to the parent category, which I think would be a far smarter way to categorize these files. VegaDark (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - among other things, these are used by my bot in conjunction with User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js. I have no idea how this is harming anything or "setting a bad precedent." It is pure maintenance related. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask how exactly these are used, and why using the parent cat for everything instead of individual subcategories wouldn't work? Also, some of these users haven't edited for quite some time (2013 last edit), would you be opposed to deleting the categories for inactive users?VegaDark (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - categories are used for maintenance of the project. Kelly hi! 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize they are used for maintenance of the project. I'm suggesting that this system was set up inefficiently and I'm trying to discuss how to improve it, so that we aren't using categories for individual users like we currently have in place. VegaDark (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason maintenance categories are sometimes exempt from the empty-categories rule is that by the transient nature of maintenance, such categories will be populated sometimes and empty others, but are still needed because maintenance is ongoing and it would be pointless to force somebody to recreate a deleted category again every time it's needed again. Delete for inactive users, but keep for users who are still participating in this maintenance project — restructuring how the maintenance-category queue is structured is a question for the maintenance project itself, not for CFD. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that maintenance categories intended to be empty should be exempt from C1. It's unclear if that's how these function. Considering they are all empty, perhaps so, but I'm awaiting a clear discussion on how exactly these are used, and my strong hunch is that there's no good reason to be using categories for individual users as opposed to one general category. VegaDark (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, that's a valid question — but it's one that should be decided by the project participants themselves, not imposed by CFD. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't fully agree with that sentiment. While I appreciate that projects should be given great leeway in such endeavors, these nonetheless are categories that need to follow our best practices regarding categorization, which is unquestionably a CfD issue. In other words, I'm not prepared to say that we should defer to a small group of project participants as to what the best categorization scheme is for this maintenance project, especially when it appears on its face that the current scheme is not particularly well done. I will also highlight that when considering categorization schemes that use individual user's names, I find that such schemes often give rise to WP:OWN issues - Users are generally hesitant to delete a category with their own username in it. Thus, I thought the discussion would be better to occur on CfD with a higher likelihood of disinterested parties contributing. While I created a topic on the parent category talk page per your advice, I'm pessimistic about getting anywhere with that. VegaDark (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:, at what point do we determine that the project participants have no interest in discussing the issue to therefore make it more appropriate for CfD in your view? Nobody has responded to my post on the talk page, made over a week ago. I pinged the user who (by my understanding) primarily runs the project a few days ago, and even pointed him to the discussion directly on his talk page. I think this supports my initial hunch that these individual-user categories are mere vanity categories with no actual productive use to the project, as opposed to just using the parent category, and there's simply no good response to justify their existence. Are you still wanting to defer the decision to a non-responsive project? VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 23 November 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_November_13&oldid=1138411324"