Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 19

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

January 19[edit]

Category:21th-century military history[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: speedy delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:21st-century military history Robby (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just a typo and can be deleted via speedy deletion. Plus, it's an empty category. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 20 January 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:Animal media[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 based primarily on the strong arguments that derive roughly from WP:OVERLAPCAT. ~ Rob13Talk 20:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More WP:CRUFT by the same author. See Category:Cat media for similar issues. jps (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this is a thing, how much of a thing it is hard to say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the articles are already in Category:Animal and pet magazines which is perfectly appropriate, save the article Media coverage of cats which should be moved to Category:Pets after deletion of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marcocapelle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, media about Animals, reporting on the latest up to date current events, info and happenings is much more vast than Animal and pet magazines. Cat news for example is a "happening thing" and as unconceivable as it may be, people take it seriously. Take The Catnip Times and The Purrington Post. These are news sites which cat lovers and people associated with industries that make money off of cats check daily. Magazines can't do that. Karl Twist (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article The Purrington Post has been deleted (with just a redirect left) and The Catnip Times is already in the pet magazines category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 In practice, none of these are aiding navigation today. While there is definitely a cultural trend with cat videos and memes, it's hard to see how that will generate individually notable articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:35, 10 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:Cat lover culture[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:Cats in popular culture. Taken in tandem with the discussion below, that seems to be the outcome which best reflects the mood of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tandem nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat lover culture. jps (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a real cat culture out there that isn't addressed in another category. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.131.115 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 In practice, none of these are aiding navigation today. While there is definitely a cultural trend with cat videos and memes, it's hard to see how that will generate individually notable articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:36, 10 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:Cat media[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:Cats in popular culture. Taken in tandem with the discussion above, that seems to be the outcome which best reflects the mood of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category. Is this media for cats or cats in the media? Doesn't seem to be either of these. Just WP:CRUFT. jps (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to ජපස aka jps - The page could be divided into two sections. When I created it, I created it with the intention of it being Cat News. News for cat lovers, enthusiast and industries that make their money from cats. This is not cruft as you suggest. I have been monitoring what has been going on in the world of cats for some time and I have seen an upward trend which brought me to the conclusion that there definitely is an important media scene about cats. In hindsight I can see now how the creation has attracted the desire to delete, but I still stand by what I say. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marcocapelle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cat media is a "happening thing" right now! The problem is that many people have this "purring fur balls" image pop in their mind when they think of people and cats. I dare say that cat lovers and people that talk about cats often are thought of as eccentric. That's not the case at all. I'm being honest here. I do like cats and I've had cats in the past. But I in no way go to the lengths that some people do to celebrate their status as a cat lover. I'm not a fanatic! I guarantee that if the cat media category stays, it will become a magnet to other cat-related articles being created and aid in the expansion of Wikipedia. Surely that can't be a bad thing. And Wikipedia won't be overrun with Cat articles. And it won't turn into Whiskerpedia either.
    BTW: The reason why I linked Whiskerpedia is that I believe there'll be a site with that name in a few years. Karl Twist (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Cats in popular culture, which is part of established category hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 In practice, none of these are aiding navigation today. While there is definitely a cultural trend with cat videos and memes, it's hard to see how that will generate individually notable articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:36, 10 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:Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions[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) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of nationality in one country and profession in another. TM 14:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this is a thing, how much of a thing it is hard to say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are mostly people who permanently moved from Canada to another country at a fairly young age, they are not what we usually call expatriates. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The complementary list was also nominated for deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a defining characteristic — not least because it includes people who were born in Canada but then moved to other countries as children, but because it also includes people (e.g. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga) who were born in other countries and then became naturalized citizens of Canada before moving back to their native country again. That doesn't create a useful commonality between Vīķe-Freiberga and Jennifer Granholm, for example. It's also slightly odd that Ted Cruz isn't also here, though I suspect that's got more to do with past inclusion-warring over its relevance to his article than with him simply having been overlooked. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the problem is that most of these people, like Granholm, are citizens of the country in which they served in office. Expatriates are people who are not only not yet citizens in their host country, but still have deep connections and in theory plan to return to their mother country. So the very title of this category is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 7 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:UPN affiliates[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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: UPN is a former network. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For Now There are 9 sub-categories of Category:American television network affiliates that start with "Former". Some are discontinued networks and some are active networks who individual stations have left. I'm not sure if these are defining or not, but we UPN isn't less defining than the others. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RevelationDirect: I went to close this discussion and just wanted to clarify what you were opposing. Are you opposing a rename (as proposed by the nom) or deletion (as proposed by someone else above)? ~ Rob13Talk 04:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Oppose Deletion @BU Rob13: You're right, I misread the original nomination and focused on Slatersteven's suggestion. I favor a rename but not deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 10 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:Religion in the British Empire[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) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, hardly any content of this category is specifically about the period of the British Empire. Many subcategories and articles are about still existing Anglican church bodies. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without the conquest by the Empire, there would be no "Anglican Church in Foo". It wasn't the salvation of immaterial souls that motivated their establishment you know, rather the the plundering of raw materials. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These Anglican Churches would not even exist without the Empire, and are part of its legacy. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but agree with a rename, the empire is defunct, this is a legacy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding possible renames, please see Category:Religion by former country which lists the names of many former empires, without the prefix "Legacy". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but this is an entirely different case. It is not about religion in the British Empire but instead about current churches which have started up during the British Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except we have Category:Anglican Church in Central America that primarily exists in countries such as Guatemala. Much of the claims of the link of Empire and Church are not well supported by the facts on the ground. The spread of Christianity in India was largely against the will of the British authorities, not with their consent and encouragement for example. Then we have the Episcopal Church snuck in here, even though it only was formed after American indepdence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 7 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:Government-owned companies of China[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 without prejudice against a fresh nomination of the entire tree of Category:Government-owned companies by country. (non-admin closure)Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing. I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Störm, to restore the status quo ante. This discussion can consider whatever rationale Störm chooses to advance for their proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they are literally owned by government and most of them are former government ministry and department. Matthew hk (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for obvious reason. We should use the title which is common and is standard practice, per WP:COMMONTITLE. The suggested title is correct and common because it is used by US Govt. [1], South China Morning Post (SCMP), a top newspaper covering China [2] and by The Diplomat [3], a Japanese magazine, and many other not mentioned. It is a term used by newspapers around the word to refer to Chinese SOEs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles also stated the influence of the State Council/central government, plus nomenklatura, the dual system of the party is the government, thus the firms are leaded by party via government. Matthew hk (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, the reason given above by Storm seems to me a valid reason. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 20 January 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:Bridges completed in the 1883[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: speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Bridges completed in 1883 Robby (talk) 08:09, 19 January 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:Endemic fauna of Swaziland[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Fauna of Eswatini. Note: I'm not sure why this category wasn't moved by the previous discussion. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 19 January 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:Fly fishing target species[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 have left a dump of the category's current contents at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Fly_fishing_target_species. And no, I haven't made it a list article, because that requires sources etc ... and when I have previously created bare list articles of category contents, they have just sat around unsourced until deletion. But anyone who wants to create a proper list can do use the dump as a starting point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Fly fishing target species to article List of fly fishing target species
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't appear to be a defining category for these species of fish. — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some of the articles (e.g. Bluefish) don't even mention fly fishing. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It may be a real thing (after all they do not fish for sharks).Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that there are some fish that are fly fishing targets and some that are not; the point is: of those that are fly fishing targets for many/all of them that's a non-defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that is often a "rule", we apply to lists anyway.10:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing a category, not a list. You can read more about non-defining characteristics for categories at WP:NONDEF. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:42, 22 January 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:Kickstarter-funded animated films[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) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being animated is a trivial difference. Do not upmerge to other parent as it is inappropriate (removing it now). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep For no other reason then it will stop the other form being bloated. I do not want to have to wade through 666 items to find the one I want.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:46, 22 January 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:Easy listening artists[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the scheme under Category:Musicians by genre and the concept that performers of easy listening music would be easy listening musicians. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:49, 19 January 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:Dance-pop artists[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the scheme under Category:Musicians by genre. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:41, 19 January 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_January_19&oldid=1079915287"