Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Fisheries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 28#Category:Fisheries

Category:Jewish engravers by nationality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 28#Category:Jewish engravers by nationality

Category:Successful write-in candidates[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. I'll list this on the manual page to verify that all category members are included in the existing list. MER-C 05:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Successful write-in candidates to article Write-in candidate
Nominator's rationale: Listify - already largely duplicated by the list in Write-in candidate. Le Deluge (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I was the one who created this category and I don't think anyone has used it since. If other users think that it makes more sense as a list on the article write-in candidate then I have no objection and would be fine with deleting or merging or converting it as appropriate. Thanks for hearing me out. Omanlured (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The situation cannot arise in my country, but several of the articles do not in fact explain that the person was a write-in or why. The list does this much better. I suspect that all the people are already in Write-in candidate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2019 (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:Planned Economies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 28#Category:Planned Economies

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Chinese in New York City[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. MER-C 05:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikiproject is inactive. Category will sit empty and useless. Ϫ 11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the inactive template on the wikiproject page has been untouched for two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (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:Non-fiction books about Star Wars[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. MER-C 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category needs to specify "non-fiction". Books about Star Wars are not Category:Books based on Star Wars. Just like equivalent Category:Books about Star Trek doesn't need 'non-fiction' added to it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Books about Star Wars" is a vast group, as it potentially includes every published piece of spin-off. There is also a distinct and significant group of non-fiction books too, and we should (as at present) categorise these separately. Their status is clear: although they are somewhat fictionalised books set in a fictionalised universe, titles like "The Death Star Owners' Workshop Manual" are not extending the fictional narrative with any new plot or characterisation (as the spin-off stories do) but are describing existing concepts within that universe.
Also I am getting very tired of this "any WP content about fiction should be deleted" barrage of AfDs from just a handful of editors. Throw enough AfDs and you will of course get some of them to stick. This is not a productive outcome for the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2019 (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:Landships[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. MER-C 05:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Original research related to WP:Articles for deletion/Landship. Before I emptied it, the category contained the sub-categories Category:Engineering vehicles, Category:Giant stripping shovels, Category:Superheavy tanks and Category:Tunnel boring machines, various articles that didn't mention the term "landship" and that were largely contained in one of those sub-categories, plus Landship Committee. There is no indication that the vehicles described in the inclusion criteria are generally referred to as "landships" or "landcraft", and we don't need a category for a historical term for "tank" that is no longer in use. Huon (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a closer look the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte article did mention the term "landship" without the creator of the category adding it. It did not, however, cite a source that the Ratte was a (proposed) landship, and the cited sources did not use the term "landship". Huon (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Landkreuzer means "land cruiser" or "land crosser" in English—it has nothing to do with ships. HopsonRoad (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are already meaningful categories for the items described. "Land ship" is not a word in the English lexicon. It is a concept that appeals to one or a few editors that ties large, mobile machinery together in a manner that adds no value—e.g. tanks being categorized with boring machines. HopsonRoad (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landships Committee is a specific archaic usage that was used for less than a year before becoming the Tank Supply Committee. You often get weird names in the early stages of a technology, but the committee was not interested in procuring boring machines and excavators. I must admit I was in two minds about this category when I first saw it, but I'm tending towards Delete.Le Deluge (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:CFD is specific: "do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category ". Doing the same thing immediately before nominating it is no better. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator listed the subcats removed. DexDor (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to let recently added WP:OR sit in more than a dozen articles for the purpose of a category deletion discussion. I listed the former subcategories, and the category page itself gives inclusion criteria that can be evaluated. Even if this were indeed a valid category, there was no indication whatsoever that any of the articles I removed would belong: Since there are no sources at all referring to any of the topics as a "landship", they clearly fail WP:CATDEF. Huon (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (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.

Template:LA-stub[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Approved by WPSS as "Ladakh-stub" but created with incorrect form. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - i'm probably not alone in instantly assuming this would be for Los Angeles, with Louisiana and Laos (.la) not far behind. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support LA is ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2019 (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/2019_December_19&oldid=932771803"