Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12[edit]

Category:UNI.T[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. Timrollpickering 20:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON. The group Uni.T lasted a grand total of five months together, and there is no chance this category can realistically be populated to satisfy WP:SMALLCAT. ℯxplicit 23:08, 12 October 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:Lepidoptera described in 1758[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lepidoptera categories to be deleted (144)
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty lepidoptera categories, an undesired, sparsely populated, intermediate category between the Category:Insects described in 1901-level and Category:Butterflies described in 1901/Category:Moths described in 1901-level, per recent WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See WP:INSECTS discussion here, and related CfD here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE, WT:INSECTS, & WT:LEPID notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I lack the necessary expertise to have any views on the merit of these categories. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oculi, you were the one to bring Lepidoptera to my attention, and rightly so!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there's no point in a large set of categories each of which hold only two subcategories. (This is a repeated problem which occurs when editors try to exactly replicate a taxonomic hierarchy in related categories, regardless of the resulting tiny size of some of them.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support this in principle, but I can't bring myself to support a nom which appears to be based on a prior depopulation of the nominated categories. That pre-empts the CFD discusison, and makes it pointless because there is nothing left to keep. The categories should have been nominated for merger, and any depopulation done only after a consenus to do so was formed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: if not for the ~3.5 month long RfC, that definitely would have been an option. The RfC, and any WikiProject-specific discussion, act as the requisite merger discussion, and no great number of articles have been edited as a result. I'd say between 0~10 articles have been edited over the course of these 6 CfDs & 383 categories so far (container categories misplaced on articles not withstanding; I think all were container, so the # is probably 0, but I'm hedging my bets with an upper limit of 10). These CfDs also serve several purposes: they act as 1) a 'speak now or forever hold your peace' notification, 2) a reminder and solidification of the prevailing consensus, to both inform project members and to dissuade future forking, and 3) a historical record at WT:TREE and each of the associated WikiProjects.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG. A consensus in a wikiproject is not a consensus at cfd. It is also much less work just to bring it to cfd and let a bot carry out the decision. I would ask Tom.Reding in future not to depopulate or redirect or move categories but to bring them to cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. For very specialized taxonomic categories, the appropriate expertise resides in WikiProjects, as indeed does guidance on how to they should be used. As Tom notes, this has been discussed at multiple Tree of Life descendant WikiProjects for months, and all the changes have made with consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is there on every cfd template: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." It's easy: do nothing, come to cfd, obtain approval, let a bot make the changes. Oculi (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover 'Lepidiptera', butterflies, moths and decades are hardly 'very specialized taxonomic categories'. I was familiar with all these terms by the age of 8. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: re your second point, sure, but it's not the "lepidoptera" part of the category name that's at issue. The discussion at ToL WikiProjects was on how to produce an overall set of "taxa described in year" categories that would be coherent and maintainable long term, which requires consensus from those editors who actually use the categories, and the adoption of a set of guidelines, like those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories, which editors can refer to. The CfD process doesn't get guidelines written and agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: this is not complicated. By all means, have long discussions at WikiProjects. But then come to CFD, linking to those discussions, and seek a community-wide consensus before implementing the changes agreed in the WP:Local consensus at the WikiProject.
It is a waste of everyone's time to ask CFD to decide on a fait accompli. A consensus at this CFD to keep could not be implemented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I absolutely accept the general principle of local consensus not over-riding community consensus. But it isn't realistic to do nothing before coming here when it's not just a case of fixing one category but implementing a wholesale reorganization – the CfD process won't get this done, as I pointed out above. If you're concerned about time being wasted here, would it be better in future to leave the categories empty and then use {{Db-c1}} (which is allowed if the category was emptied outside of a deletion discussion)? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I would honor any close-as-keep (of course), but that is a very unlikely scenario. L293D also suggested, in the vertebrates CfD, to just C1 them. I chose not to due to the above, as I see them, 'benefits', but if those don't outweigh the costs then I can just C1 (I'll just notify the associated WikiProjects with a different message).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as part of cleaning up the inconsistently used and un-needed category containers as described in previous discussion at WP:TOL. Loopy30 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 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.

Teachers colleges[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 2018 OCT 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option A:
Propose merging Category:Teachers colleges to Category:Education schools
Option B:
Propose merging Category:Education schools to Category:Teachers colleges
Propose renaming Category:Education schools by country to Category:Teachers colleges by country
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in China to Category:Teachers colleges in China
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Japan‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Japan
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Poland‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Russia‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Russia
Nominator's rationale: merge (option A) or reverse merge (option B). The previous attempt of merging Category:Education schools and Category:Teachers colleges failed, not because because anyone objected merging, but because there was an issue about the 'correct' name of the category. Here is a new attempt and please note that "no consensus" is worse than either of the two proposals because it will leave us with two categories with an identical scope. Also note that in option B a large number of country subcats have not been included in the nomination; the ones that have not been listed here should be decided upon individually, taking in mind WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - there are only 2 articles (one in Zimbabwe, one in Turkey) and no subcats in Category:Teachers colleges, created in 2016, long after Category:Education schools. Also Teachers college is a redirect to Normal school. Just create Category:Education schools in Turkey and Category:Education schools in Zimbabwe for the 2 articles. Oculi (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B:. I think "Education schools" invites misinterpretation. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Teacher Training Colleges. I sampled a number of countries, mostly anglophone and Teachers' Colleges and Schools of Education (not Education Schools) seemed to predominate. My recollection of UK system is that Colleges of Education and Teacher Training Colleges were free-standing institutions training school-leavers to be teachers, whereas Schools of Education were providing a post-graduate Certificate of Education to those with a Batchelor's degree in another subject. Whatever the outcome, we need a single worldwide parent (and a "by country" parent. The national subcategories should reflect national usage. Categorisation should reflect their function, not their name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Prefer Teacher Training Colleges, but this may be because I went to one. In the UK they were independent, but have subsequently become universities, or merging into them. Previously the universities ran Schools of Education. But I think we should avoid using the word school, because it invites misinterpretation. I think the word Teacher needs to appear. And we need to make it clear whether this category includes only independent organisations or also departments of universities.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 22 October 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:White Power[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. Timrollpickering 20:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The stated criteria is "The main articles for this category are White Power and White Power movement." There are no such articles, those are redirects to White pride and White supremacy respectively. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I just noticed that the redirects are also in this category. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the Cat main template. I created the category in preparation of creating the White Power article which will help document the historical use of the phrase and it's impact on past and today's political and social situation. It's important to note that the category doesn't just cover the White Power article but everything that encompasses the term such as hate groups (KKK, American Nazi Party), the person coined the term (Rockwell), and related articles (white power music, Encyclopedia of White Power). Dash9Z (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and possibly revisit this issue if we are going to have an established White Power article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now until there is an article about it. Bharatiya29 14:03, 16 October 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:Jessica Jones seasons[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, and also to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe seasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, and its parent category, both seem rather small. The parent category has only 2 articles - one about the show, the other is a list of characters in the show. Should we simply merge this list of seasons with the overall category for the TV series? – numbermaniac 07:35, 12 October 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:BioWare companions[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 2018 OCT 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, the subject does not merit such an overly specific category. As far as I can tell, pretty much all Bioware characters who have articles here are party members for the main character's party. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I originally created the category, I figure I might as well give the context for why I made it. I noticed a lot of overall coverage of BioWare companions taken in aggregate -- who was the best, the worst, what were recurring archetypes BioWare used and how game romance was handled, etc. So I felt it made a degree of sense to just give that a category outside of the usual franchise-specific character ones. But yes, the vast majority of articles we have on BW characters are on companions -- the obvious exceptions being Revan, Commander Shepard and some of the listy character articles, but these are rare enough that, even for a hypothetical person just searching for info on BioWare companions, they probably wouldn't have much of a problem. On the record I do think the idea of RPG party members is probably distinct from the more general idea of a 'sidekick', though I'm not now actually advocating that be split into a separate category. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 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:Star Wars droid 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - there are only 5 actual members of the category, and no need for such a specific category when there is not one for "Star Wars Imperial characters" or "Star Wars rebel characters". There is no reason the characters can't simply be in the "Star Wars characters" and "Fictional robots" categories at the same time. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I count 9 articles, not 5. This is not a small category. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of them are redirects which are not allowed in categories. Others are articles that were wrongly placed there ("Battle droid" and "Droid" are articles about a fictional concept, not a fictional character)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even 5 is not SMALLCAT. As I write there are 7 including 1 redirect; redirects can and should be categorised. (This said any categorisation of L3-37 is difficult to support. One would like at least a sentence on L3-37.) Oculi (talk) 21:06, 12 October 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:Months in the 2000s[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 2018 OCT 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really get the purpose of this category but I would like to have more experienced editors take a look L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 12 October 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:2018 Commonwealth Games sports templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. ℯxplicit 02:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For each year, the same type of template is split across two categories. DH85868993 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. this was 2 separate nominations. I have merged them into one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (i.e. do not merge). Just make the navbox categories subcats of their related template categories, and move all navboxes to the subcat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the templates in the "sports templates" categories are navboxes, so all that would be left in the "sports templates" categories would be the "navigational boxes" subcategories. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no prob with that.
If non-navbox templates are created, they have a home. If not, there's still an extra path to the cats with content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - exactly as BHG says, with typical sagacity. Oculi (talk) 11:07, 12 October 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_October_12&oldid=1138411987"