Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Czech ice hockey clubs[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/2018 May 4#Czech ice hockey clubs. ℯxplicit 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories contain the players of the same clubs. Proposing to merge to the category with the club's current name. Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changes their titular sponsor very often. Proposing to rename to neutral name to avoid CFR nominations each year.--Darwinek (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am split on the first 3 because its fairly standard that we have categories for each name a team has gone through for player categories as it is inaccurate to state a player played for a team with a different name than the one they actually played on. In sports the teams actual name matters. I do however agree with the last one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky. Czech Extraliga teams very often change their official name according to their main sponsor. This way you have easily many players who, technically speaking, were playing for a team with, say, 4 different names, although it is still the same club. - Darwinek (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is why I am a bit split on the situation. Some teams still have non-sponsor generic names that could be used I like the one you propose. Not sure if that is the case for the others. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this may not be about sponsor names at all. From the website of the first nominated club [1] I read that HC Harirov went bankrupt after which AZ Havirov was established as a new club with a historical name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2018 (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:Band of Brothers characters[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't prove it, but I think this category was originally about the characters in the TV series. Over a period of time, as books about the men and the unit (Easy Company) were published, coverage on the pages broadened to included information not included in the series. Note: I recently added a new page about Salve H. Matheson, mentioned in the book by Ambrose who did not appear in the series. The category has outgrown the series. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (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:Vishal–Shekhar soundtracks[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT --woodensuperman 15:54, 16 April 2018 (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.

Magmatism not igneous petrology[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: procedural close. Regardless of the discussion below, a CfD nomination cannot be weighed as a consensus to change anything unless a) each category is tagged, and b) each category is listed in the discussion with a clear indication of what change is proposed to it. This is to ensure that editors are properly notified of the discussion, and that the changes are clear.
Without that, no discussion here can be considered a valid consensus. This discussion does not meet those criteria (no tagging, no list), so leaving it open would be a waste of everyone's time.
@Mamayuco: @Marcocapelle has already pointed to WP:CFD#HOWTO. Feel free to open a new nomination per those steps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:All categories that blend a geologic time period with "igneous petrology" to be renamed into time period + magmatism. eous petrology is a science, it is not not a natural phenomenon per se. The phenomenon these categories refer to is magmatism, that when it reaches the surface is called volcanism. For example Category:Devonian igneous petrology is to be renamed Category:Devonian magmatism, Category:Precambrian igneous petrology is to be renamed Category:Precambian magmatism, and Category:Holocene igneous petrology is to be renamed Category:Holocene magmatism. Any ideas thoughts? The move will be massive as it involves a large number of categories that are miss-named. Mamayuco (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mamayuco: If you want to pursue this, you need to provide the full list of categories to be renamed and you need to tag these categories, see WP:CFD#HOWTO. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The igneous petrology categories are for igneous formations, not a phenomenon. Renaming categories after a phenomenon when that is not what the categories are for is misleading. Also, the categories are not just for magmatic rocks but also volcanic rocks, the latter of which are grouped into a volcanism subcategory which I believe should be changed to volcanology. It's no different than, for example, Category:Devonian geology. Volcanoguy 23:53, 16 April 2018 (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:Global trade and professional 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Category:Global trade and professional organizations. ℯxplicit 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of the two categories is too closely related to keep the categories separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2018 (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:Heresy in ancient Christianity[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 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is non NPV. Heresy is a label for an idea you don't agree with. In this case, these "heresies" in ancient Christianity are those with whom people with political power, such as the Roman Catholic Church, disagreed with. The proposed rename is in line with the article Diversity in early Christian theology Mustardseed1 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a pity that the nominator appears not to have read the article heresy: "Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization". It is an insult only if you consider orthodoxy to be the ideal, which is a POV stance.
"Heresy" is the term used in that era to describe those labelled non-orthodox. Wikipedia should follow the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Diversity is certainly not a term used in religions but heresy certainly is. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per BrownHairedGirl's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Heresy is the common term. Of course the adherents of the view judged by the Catholics as heretical probably regarded the Catholics as heretics. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per bhg, commonname etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2018 (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:Brooke Hogan 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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a category for only two articles, both of them are already linked in the main subjects article.★Trekker (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the recording artist is a defining characteristic of an album. Category:Albums by artist: "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Oculi (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a noted exception to WP:SMALLCAT. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's true that not all possible categories actually exist yet, Category:Albums by artist is a tree that is meant in theory to contain all albums that have Wikipedia articles at all — so an artist does not have to have recorded a certain specific minimum number of albums to qualify for a dedicated subcategory here, but rather even one album is enough. This is what is known as an "overall accepted subcategorization scheme" for the purposes of escaping WP:SMALLCAT: a tree that's specifically intended to be comprehensively diffused for every piece of potential content. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2018 (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/2018_April_16&oldid=1073191537"