Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 9

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

October 9[edit]

Category:Pokémon (anime)[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No reason to have this subcategory when the parent is all that is needed —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal Keep this cat, but delete Category:Pokémon anime and manga. Except for being based on the same video games, the anime and mangas have almost nothing in common, so it doesn't really make sense to lump them together. JDDJS (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - You have made no argument as to why the anime category isn't needed. It certainly doesn't fail WP:SMALLCAT. If the anime category is downmerged then it should be done at the same time as the manga category. I do support a name change to "Pokémon anime" and "Pokémon manga" for both categories, because the category obviously refers to all anime based on Pokemon, including films, and not just the TV show, which the article is on, and all the manga articles are about Pokemon rather than based on it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:49, 10 October 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.

Establishments by country before 1000[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 as nominated. While I, too, concur with the suggestion to replace 'Germany' with the appropriate historical placenames, there is no compelling reason to implement this change just for 4 years. This change would require a separate, broader discussion of the appropriate subcategories of Category:Establishments in Germany by century. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were omitted from the merger nomination which was agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 10. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely or merge only to the European establishments. There was no such place as Germany in this period, so we need to get rid of the "8th-" and "10th-century establishments in Germany" categories as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, as a continuation of an earlier merge. While I understand there are issues with Germany, a fact for now is that German century categories exist, so then they are the proper merge target. There has been a discussion about the medieval German categories before, closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom -- This how these have been merged. Germany is a common name for Holy Roman Empire, but we could make Holy Roman Empire the target. However that would be better done as part of a much wider omnibus nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The precise term "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until the 13th century, to quote our article about it, and anyway Charlemagne (first holder of the title "Holy Roman Emperor") wasn't crowned until 800, and he ruled what's now France, not Germany. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ymblanter (talk · contribs) has emptied some of these and their parent categories "out of process". I reinstated the 997 one on 15 Oct after they removed the CFD template. Today they emptied and deleted the 974 one.[1] – Fayenatic London 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the 974 one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative merge per Nyttend, as Federal Republic of Germany didn't exist at the time: thus merging 700s into Category:8th-century establishments in Francia and merge 900s to Category:10th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 09:20, 17 October 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:Abundant Life Ministries albums[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 12#Category:Abundant Life Ministries albums. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains three redirects which all three redirect to the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would create a precedent that is probably undesirable. There may be tons of music albums in lists in musician articles, without a stand-alone article about the album, we do not want to end them all up as redirects in categories, do we? Marcocapelle (talk) 01:43, 24 October 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.

Small string quartets by nationality[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 to Category:String quartets and "Category:Fooian musical groups". ℯxplicit 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: String quartet is a common type of instrumental group, and there are a lot of them in some countries, but there are a lot of countries where we have few articles. The proposal here is to merge all those by-nation cats with four members or less (Israel is the only example with four, and there are none with three) into the parent string quartet category. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm fine with including a few underpopulated categories if the overall tree is well populated, but this is creating one small cat after another. And I'm not seeing a clear musical distinction of string quartets by nation. (I just added the African subcat which was tagged but omitted from the initial nom.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB if merging, it must be a double upmerge into the relevant national musical groups category e.g. Category:Swiss musical groups. BencherliteTalk 22:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fuller upmerge, but I wonder whether Category:European string quartets might not be a more appropriate target in appropriate cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have to subdivide Category:String quartets, I think national divisions are more natural in this case than continental ones. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:String quartets and [X]ian musical groups, per Bencherlite. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Although African is not a nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, create some, upmerge some We have African and Asian string quartets, can make European, North American and Oceanian ones. These can contain the quartets from the by country categories that would have to go. We can keep per country with four and more. Symbolic to the quartet category. This combination of actions will provide the best balance of spatial specificity, sufficiently populated categories, and building upon existing infrastructure. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 19 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:String trios[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, without prejudice to further discussion as part of the below-mentioned "different reorganization". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the ongoing re-examination for "musical groups by number of members" categories, here we have one whose only member is a "compositions for" subcat; therefore we don't appear to have any articles on groups which call themselves string trios, so this one can go. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree that it is a bit small, but deletion would leave the articles orphaned. The alternative might be to merge to quartets and rename that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The contents of the category have changed significantly since the nomination was made. I'm not inclined to continue with the original outcome and rationale, but I'm looking at some of the other trio categories and thinking this one might be involved in a different reorganization. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – If this category is for groups of three string players, it was, and probably still is, underpopulated. Apparently, a start to populate it has been made. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 21 October 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:Sazae-san[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) 08:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with the previous two nominations, too few articles for categorization and no potential for growth. WP:SMALLCAT —Farix (t | c) 10:48, 9 October 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:Kiteretsu Daihyakka[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) 08:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as the category for Monsumo. Too few articles for categorization and no potential for growth. WP:SMALLCAT —Farix (t | c) 10:46, 9 October 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:Monsuno[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, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that only contains the main article, episode list, and a non-free use image and there is no further potential to grow to be useful for navigation. WP:SMALLCAT —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is not enough content at this time (just the main article, list of episodes, and title card) to warrant an eponymous category for this television series. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:37, 14 October 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:Moths of France[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 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of deleted categories. These were deleted at cfd in 2015. Oculi (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential rename to "... of Metropolitan France". That avoids the pre-2015 problem of the category containing species from Guyane, Réunion, Nouvelle-Calédonie, etc. If we want to restrict it to the Hexagon, use "Mainland France" to exclude Corsica. I'm unclear whether geographically homogenous countries, e.g. Belgium or Spain, have their own category set; I'm open to deletion if this isn't done with such countries. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and can we salt this? The only creatures that know about national borders, particularly in Europe where countries are comparatively small, are people. People keep recreating these categories, and I note that underneath these are other equally questionable categories. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as we're careful not to delete all country categories. It's entirely reasonable to have a category tree for animals and plants of Iceland, animals and plants of Malta, animals and plants of Cyprus, animals and plants of Madagascar, etc. — any island country with no land borders is probably a good basis for categories, since the island status itself (not the country) is highly relevant to the distribution of many species. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. It is legitimate to have categories for isolated island nations, but I am dubious about Mediterranean islands, to which animals could walk 100,000 years ago. This particularly applies to moths which can fly there. Madagascar is a case we should keep as its fauna is very different from anywhere else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
response -- certainly merge, rather than plain delete where necessary. If kept, it should have a headnote exclusing overseas departments. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 19 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 Church organizations[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. ℯxplicit 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Letting go of redundant categorisation per WP:Overcategorisation for better overview, and general convenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above-mentioned reference of Category:Catholic Church organisation to the Holy See is for the whole Catholic Church, no matter whether subject to the Latin Church or the Eastern Catholic Churches in terms of particular churches sui iuris. In other words, I'm afraid I'm not sure how your objection apply. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:01, 9 October 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:Types of Roman Catholic organization[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. In regards to the use of American English vs. British English, that will require a separate nomination to focus on this aspect. ℯxplicit 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Letting go of redundant categorisation per WP:Overcategorisation for better overview, and general convenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These 2 categories are also quite different. One wonders sometimes whether editors look at the categories they are nominating. Oculi (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are different, but arguably not in a way that supersedes redundancy as disapproved in WP:Overcategorisation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Over-categorisation relates to 'category clutter', an excessive number of categories at the bottom of an article. Please cite an article which will be improved by the nomination. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fate of this category should depend on the outcome of the above discussion. If "organisation" is kept as a category, "types of organization" does not add much. If "organizations" is kept as a category, "types of organizations" is more clearly different. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi's comments. Catholic Church organisation is for the structure of the Church itself, while many or most of the types of Roman Catholic organizations are groups that aren't part of the hierarchy; they're under the hierarchy, and they're set up to serve the Church's purposes, but they aren't themselves part of it. We do need to add an explanatory note distinguishing the two, since the contents show that the nominator's not the only one to confuse the two of them. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if both categories are kept, should the spelling of organisation be made uniform at either US or Commonwealth English? Having "organisation" for one and "organization" for the other looks odd. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly British, according to longstanding WP:Consensus (2013) per WP:Consistency with its main article Catholic Church (see the very top of its article code). Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below the next !vote. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and standardise spelling to British English (s not z). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) in the question of spelling that it should conform to the British use in Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe explain ths point cause there are about 75 million Roman Catholics in the US vs about 5 million in the UK. gidonb (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename/split Category:Types of Roman Catholic organization to ?. Most of the items under the "organization" are actually about polity, and some are about episcopal polity in general and aren't confined to Catholic structures (or for that matter, Roman Catholic). I somewhat agree for the need for an "organizations" category, but most of the things at the root level of that tree aren't organizations: some of them go with polity and others are types of institutions that are organizations. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the case for organisation with a S is unclear as there are about 75 million Roman Catholics in the US vs about 5 million in the UK. gidonb (talk) 16:46, 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:Users helping the Internet not suck[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) 05:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not help facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Presumably all-inclusive as well as it appears to just be categorizing those who edit Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was the creator of this category, I suppose I should comment. I am willing to evaluate arguments against its introduction, but then there are several other categories that arguably hold equal dispute: Category:Wikipedian feeling discouraged, Category:Wikipedians who took the liberty to stay, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs)
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would support deletion of those two categories you mention as well. VegaDark (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicbyaccident, for context, please see the user category guideline. I agree that there are other disputable categories, but that's just because no one's gotten around to them yet. The same principle applies for any page on Wikipedia that violates a guideline or policy: there are a lot of other pages that violate the guideline or policy, but that shouldn't stop the guideline or policy being applied. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Wikipedians. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused... redirect for what purpose? This is a recently created, single-user category that does not follow naming conventions and is not likely to be searched (has virtually no pageviews). Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See q:Jimmy Wales#C-SPAN interview (2005). It's an allusion to what all Wikipedians are doing, so the scope of the two categories is identical. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I recognize the reference, I was just wondering about the value of this page as a category redirect. What purpose does it serve? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an all-inclusive category that includes all Wikipedians, and therefore overlaps with Category:Wikipedians and Special:ListUsers. Oppose redirect per my comment above, and also because redirecting would shift the contents to Category:Wikipedians, which is a container category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon; if not deleted, rename to Category:Wikipedians helping the Internet not suck. Note: I have changed the parent from Wikipedians by status to Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I followed suit and changed the name of the category to Category:Wikipedians helping the Internet not suck per WP:Consistency in accordance with most others in Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A friendly reminder, please avoid moving a category in the midst of an ongoing discussion, as such a change effectively presupposes what the outcome of the discussion will be without waiting for the discussion to end. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with the above update, I would advocate keep, if we're not going to obstruct all equivalent non public realm categories in its container category. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your basis/rationale for keeping this category (not others that may exist and can be evaluated on their own merits)? None of the arguments for deletion have to do with the category's name, so renaming it does nothing to address them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mostly harmless It's a vacuous, sale-pitch self-label, so from my perspective it might be useful to me in identifying people who sign themselves up for that kind of claptrap. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect per Black Falcon. Falls solidly into OSE. The only convolution of any merit would be "Wikipedians who believe they are helping the internet not suck". The inference cuts both ways: it is more exclusive than inclusive, and such presumptions about the calibre of their input on behalf of any user is inappropriately subjective. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Were not talking about public, serious, factual categories here in Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. I therefore find the seriosity with which they are evaluated in general, and this one in particular, quite odd. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, "seriosity"? 'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single one of those categories should be deleted. We just haven't gotten to them all yet. Are you suggesting someone should be forced to nominate all 80 categories in there at once in order for any to be deleted? VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, we're talking about user categories, which are covered by the user category guideline. How does this category align with that guideline? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:32, 14 October 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:Characters created by Karl Kessel[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) 01:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everything in this category actually belonged in the category Category:Characters created by Karl Kesel. Karl Kesel is a writer and artist in the comic book industry and he created several comics characters. Karl Kessel was a German officer during World War II. He did not create any comics characters. The category being proposed for deletion is a clear case of mistaken identity as the result of a typo. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category created with a typo. By the way, why do we have an article on Karl Kessel (the officer)? It is a two-line stub on a fairly obscure individual of no lasting importance. I have seen articles on much more notable people get deleted. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 9 October 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:The Firesign Theatre[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) 06:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Navigates too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 24#Category:The Firesign Theatre.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Parent category to two large subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the size of the subcategories is not relevant, but there are enough articles in the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 17 October 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:Black British DJs[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. (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity isn't important on WP. — Zawl 11:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all those other (sub-)categories should be reviewed too. These musicians are known for their professions not their ethnicities. — Zawl 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Agree with feminist - It is important as there are many thousands of ethnicity-related categories. Here's an example: Look at how many subcategories under subcategories under Category:American people of African descent. Same goes for Category:African-American people. Category:Black British people is no different. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, but I will also try and use a hypothetical anecdote to argue that these cats are useful, they can help people find needed information. Imagine you go to a music festival and see a DJ, you happen to have seen the same guy on an interview on BBC news before, but you get home from the festival and can't remember which name on the line-up he corresponds to. Browsing to this category might enlighten you. – filelakeshoe )³.
  • Strong support per WP:EGRS, there is no particular relationship between race and this occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The ethnicity may well be significant to his clientele. At worst this should be upmerged to all (or most) parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more consideration of WP:EGRS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further clarification, right on top of the WP:EGRS guideline it says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." So far there haven't been any convincing arguments that race is relevant to the occupation of a DJ. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Illegitimate rationale. We have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups working on articles about ethnicities, and an entire category tree which categorizes Category:British people by ethnic or national origin. Ethnicity is very important in Wikipedia. I would not oppose however a merger to parent category Category:Black British musicians, because the DJ category is surprisingly small (12 articles). Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:46, 13 October 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.

Adult animated 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: keep. There is consensus to not delete the category, but no clear direction for a rename, which that can be handled in a separate nomination. ℯxplicit 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No similar category for non-animated shows, also vague, as "adult" seems to be used to mean "anything not specifically targeting children". Trivialist (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Majority of animated shows are for targeted towards children, so the cartoons targeted towards other ages are notable for going against the norm. There isn't a similar category for non-animated shows because majority of live action shows are marketed towards to adults. However, there is a Category:Children's television series with dozens of sub and sub-sub categories. JDDJS (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trivialist, how familiar are you with animation articles? The main article here is Adult animation (alias adult cartoon, or mature animation), a subgenre of animation aimed at adults in the 18-35 years-old demographic. It is distinct from the rest of animation due to containing "risqué themes, graphic violence, profane language, sexuality, or dark humor" and/or its exploration of "philosophical, political, or social issues". I don't think there is an equivalent for live-action works in film and television. An example of adult animation was the animated sitcom Wait Till Your Father Gets Home (1972-1974). The main theme was the so-called generation gap, with a conservative father having to deal with a outspoken feminist (and rather promiscuous) daughter and a slacker son with more liberal views. Another source of the humor was the contrast between the mainstream conservatism of the protagonist and the far-right beliefs of his neighbor, who happens to be a fan of the John Birch Society, is an Anti-communism fanatic, obsesses about a large number of conspiracy theories, and believes that Militarism is the solution to every problem. This was not a typical subject matter for American animation in the 1970s. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am quite familiar with animation and the animation articles here, I know what "adult animation" is, and I know that Wait Till Your Father Gets Home is a pretty obscure example to use. Anyway, I have no objection to the "Children's _____" categories, but rather how the categories appear to be used to divide shows into either children's shows or "adult" shows, when some shows don't fit neatly into one or the other. The Simpsons is currently included in "American adult animated television series," but it has never been aimed exclusively at children or adults. In the early days of the show, there was lots of merchandise aimed at kids, like those "Underachiever and proud of it" T-shirts. What about something like Wallace and Gromit? (I realize it's British and not a television series, but hopefully you see my point.) On a side note, the name "adult animation" is vague and can easily be misinterpreted to mean "pornographic." Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American animated sitcoms and Category:Canadian animated sitcoms. The defining characteristic here isn't "adult" per se, because a good many (though certainly not all) of the shows can be and are enjoyed by children as well as adults — Trivialist is exactly correct that The Simpsons, for just one example out of many, always functioned on both kid-friendly and adult-oriented "stuff that will just fly over the kids' heads" levels, and was never just one or the other. Rather, the key WP:DEFINING characteristic is that they're scripted and structured as full half-hour sitcoms, rather than an episode consisting of two or three distinct shorts the way many (but not all) purely kid-oriented animated shows are. And Trivialist is also exactly correct that the phrase "adult animation" can carry the implication of something along the pornographic lines of Fritz the Cat — which is obviously not what the intention was here. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of the series included in these categories are not sitcoms. Æon Flux is a dystopian science fiction series, dealing with political themes. Black Panther (TV series) is a superhero adaptation, which adopts some of the political themes of the source material. BoJack Horseman is a comedy-drama series about depression and addiction. Castlevania (TV series) is a horror television series, about vampires. Fish Police (TV series) is a comic book adaptation, combining anthropomorphic animals with typical film noir tropes. Jokebook was a comedy with adult-oriented humor and no recurring characters. Lucy, the Daughter of the Devil was a horror-fantasy series, about a normal woman in her 20s who happens to be the daughter of the Devil and is being forced to adapt to her new role as the Antichrist. The Maxx was an adaptation of a particularly weird comic book, about an otherworldly realm which exists in the subconscious of a disturbed woman. Mike Tyson Mysteries is a mystery series about a father and daughter duo who investigate cases. Moral Orel is a black comedy about a child being raised in a Christian fundamentalist settlement, getting warped lessons from the adults, and being repeatedly subjected to corporal punishments by his alcoholic father. Dimadick (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just by logic, if "adult" is not a very appropriate label here, and if it is not specifically about "sitcoms" either, then apparently the categories should be merged to Category:American animated television series and Category:Canadian animated television series respectively. Or they should be plainly deleted if the content of the nominated categories is already in the subcats of those targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As is often the case, the definitions are somewhat fuzzy. So crystal clear what problem Trivialist is trying to address. Adult animation, however, is an established concept. Not a good idea to just remove categories whenever there are some challenges. gidonb (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else. Historically the classification of entertainment as "adult" is code for "pornographic", which does not actually apply to most of the maerial covered here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 25 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:Engineer characters in video 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a common theme in video games JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. A category with 3 articles is typically too small by Wikipedia standards. It may have scope for expansion, but I an not that familiar with the subject. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The category appears incomplete and merits expansion. There are many other engineers listed at list of fictional scientists and engineers in the "video games" section including ones with their own articles like Otacon and Tails (character). Clearly a common theme in video games, though not incredibly so.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZXCVBNM The list of fictional scientists and engineers video game section is completely unsourced. How many of the characters are explicitly called engineers, and are not just determined to be engineers by original research? For example, while I haven't played every Sonic game, in the ones I have played, I never remember anybody explicitly calling him an engineer. Yeah, he invents things and is very good at fixing mechanical machines, but he's already in Category:Inventor characters in video games and Category:Fictional mechanics to cover that. I have the feeling this is the case for a lot of the other characters listed on the page. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, after cleaning up the list with only mentions from RS it thins it out a lot. So I'll change my vote to upmerge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question meanwhile the category contains 13 articles instead of 3, this is no longer a case of WP:SMALLCAT, is it? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle I removed the characters that are never actually said to be engineers, and there are now only 9 pages in the cat, of which, more than half are redirects. Still no reason to not upmerge. JDDJS (talk) 20:10, 21 October 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.

Characters in video games categories[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 using "Fictional foos in video games" naming convention. ℯxplicit 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The inclusion of the word character in the title is unnecessarily wordy. JDDJS (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. We do not need the term "characters" in every category containing fictional characters. The Medium of the work is enough. By the way, one of the articles in the police officers category seems to be miscategorized. Chun-Li is an Interpol agent, not a member of the regular police. The correct category would be Category:Fictional International Police Organization officials. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The "characters" serves an important purpose, otherwise it would imply that it was about any video game that features martial artists or other types of jobs, rather than the individual characters themselves. However, I might support an alternate rename to Category:Fictional martial artists in video games, etc. in order to better fit with its parent category.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia says to keep fictional and real topics separate in categories and never merge them. Considering Category:Jackie Chan video games exists, and he is a real martial artist featured in a video game, that category name wouldn't fly.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:57, 9 October 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:Reporter characters in video 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) 19:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reporter characters don't appear in video games frequently. Not a needed split. JDDJS (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Overly narrow subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 18 October 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:Photographer characters in video 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) 19:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Photographer characters don't appear in video games frequently. Not a needed split. JDDJS (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Overly narrow subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 18 October 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:Actor characters in video 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) 19:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Actor characters don't appear in video games frequently. Not a needed split. JDDJS (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Overly narrow subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 18 October 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_October_9&oldid=1138411544"