Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 13

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

February 13[edit]

Category:American morning zoo radio programs[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. Note that the categories have already been emptied, I trust the below comments have been taken into account while emptying. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was just created and all the pages I checked that were added to it make no mention anywhere that they are considered a "morning zoo" program. I undid a number that were added that were very clearly not morning zoo. Judging by the definition of Morning zoo a this category is solely going to be built on WP:OR.

Along with this I want to nominate the other categories this user just created:

The following category was not just created but I believe has the same concerns:

Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Creator of this category appears to be applying outdated term -- which peaked in 1980s -- to shows which air today. Clearly original research (& wrongly applied term anyway). Levdr1lp / talk 21:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Morning zoo" is not synonymous with every morning radio program that exists — it's a particular style of morning program defined by the hosts' attitude, and not just by the fact of being a morning show with two or three named cohosts. It's entirely possible for one program to be a "morning zoo" while another superficially similar program on a competing radio station is not — the difference is defined by the style of interaction between the cohosts, so a show where the hosts are "zany and wacky" is a "morning zoo" while a show where the hosts try to keep things relatively serious and/or relaxed is not. So the basis for inclusion here would not simply be that the program is a morning show with multiple co-hosts, but would specifically require reliable sources to identity the show as a "morning zoo" for us — however, far too many of the articles that have been categorized here don't have that.
    That said, there will need to be some caution exercised here: while many of the articles are already in "[Nationality] radio programs" or an appropriate subcategory, I've also caught at least one where this is the only category on the page — so there will need to be a selective manual upmerge to "[Nationality] radio programs" in some cases. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 17 February 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:NHS hospital trusts[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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Category:NHS_hospital_trusts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "NHS hospital trust" is no longer in use. Since the 2013 reorganisation of the NHS, a range of trust types were abolished, and all trusts are now either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts". See here: [1] BLSMD (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia does not have to follow official policies when it comes to categorising articles. The 2012 legislation didn't actually say anything about types of trusts. All trusts were already either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts", but some run mental health services, some acute hospitals, and some ambulance services. That distinction is helpful because it enables the articles, via their categorisation, to be linked to the appropriate clinical field. Furthermore there have been a lot of mergers, so many of the articles are about organisations which no longer exist and are not affected by any official recategorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every trust is either a Foundation Trust or an NHS Trust. But the smaller ones can, or could, be properly subcategorised as hospital trusts, community trusts, mental health trusts or ambulance trusts. The process of amalgamation which is now being encouraged means that the larger organisations now appearing may well perform several of these functions, so it doesnt make much sense to subcategorise them, and it may be that those subcategories will, in the long run, only contain organisations which are no longer operational Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As 'hospital trust' is a defunct term, a continuing subcategorization as hospital trust would merely lead to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real problem is not the hospital trusts, which generally still exist, but the community and mental health trusts, which are repeatedly merged and reorganised. And the ambulance trusts, which need to be linked to a different category tree. The point of the subcategories is to distinguish them. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 2 March 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:World Cup cricketers by country[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the following sub-cats:

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, this is over-categorisation. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. In the referenced discussion, the following was stated: "..Only one nationality category is required....". It seems like you are proposing the deletion of the nationality category - which is not the agreement reached. A really paranoid android (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. And the only nationality category required is Category:Fooian cricketers - beyond that they're just subdivided by international format played, or domestic teams played for. StickyWicket (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a PERFORMANCE category. I would accept a distinction between cricketers who have played for their national team, as opposed to only at county/provincial level, but one by competition is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 17 February 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:Upcoming films by genre[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 all to Category:Upcoming films --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally unnecessary. Even if all of these were merged, it would be less than 200 articles. Note that we also don't have Category:Upcoming albums by genre. There is no need for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Per nom and a magnet for IP genre-war warriors too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. Per WP:NFILM, we do not routinely keep articles about every film that happens to enter the production pipeline — under normal circumstances, we don't maintain articles about films until we can properly source a confirmed release date (either at a major film festival or on the general theatrical circuit), and permit articles about "upcoming films" only in the special circumstance that it's a very highly visible film (e.g. in the Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond or Marvel franchises) that gets a lot more production coverage than the norm. And furthermore, since as soon as a film is released it is no longer "upcoming" anymore, inclusion in Category:Upcoming films is temporary. So under these circumstances, there's no need to obsessively subcategorize upcoming films by genre at all: it's a temporary tracking category that should never be all that heavily populated in the first place, not a defining characteristic of the films.
    And on top of that, I've already caught several instances in this tree of films that have been released, but were never actually removed from these categories, which means they're not being maintained properly. In Category:Upcoming documentary films alone, literally 7/8 of what was there when I reviewed the contents was either (a) released and no longer upcoming, or (b) unreleased and not notable enough to have an article at all yet — and even the one leftover that I haven't either removed or listed for deletion is still of questionable notability at best. So for precisely this reason, Category:Upcoming films should be restricted strictly to template-transcluded autotracking of films that have still-future release dates listed in their infoboxes, and should never be manually declared on any article. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Bearcat's argument is extremely convincing. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 26 February 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:Sushi toppings[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created on 12 Feb 2019 and has been populated by a single editor with articles about fish species. If we were to include every taxon that is used in some sort of food or another in a category for that food, we would pretty soon be inundated with pointless categories. This is a clear example of over categorization Nick Thorne talk 08:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles I looked at said nothing about the fish being used in sushi. Even if they did I dont see it as a defining characteristic for a species. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally inappropriate for articles such as Striped marlin. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin question to @Nick Thorne, Rathfelder, and DexDor: in many cases this category was simply added on the article page, but in others (showing as +9 characters [2]) it replaced Category:Sushi. Should that category be reinstated on the pages, or should the articles be removed from that hierarchy? – Fayenatic London 10:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we'd restore the previous categorization (e.g. Tobiko in the Sushi category). DexDor (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic for a species and per nom. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 26 February 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_February_13&oldid=1138412068"