Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Infinite Zero 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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This record label is not sufficiently notable for its own WP article, so it is hard to see how this category is a defining characteristic for any of these albums. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Infinite Zero is/was a reissue label, so all of the albums already had their initial release under what should be the more defining label of the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this category is deleted please also delete the cross-namespace redirect Infinite Zero albums. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:50, 23 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:Articles with Synthlisten[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What purpose does this category serve that can't be served by Special:WhatLinksHere? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:27, 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:Annecy Cristal winners[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Annecy International Animation Film Festival now has Cristals for best theatrical short, theatrical feature and TV production. While the theatrical short category is the original "Annecy Cristal" and has a special significance because of this, I think using the section name used on the festival's website at https://www.annecy.org/festival/awards is very helpful for disambiguating between the different categories of Cristals.

I have realised I have made a bit of a mess by creating the new category first rather than going through the normal procedure to get this approved to be done by a bot. But suggesting this merge is the best way I can think of remedying my first-time-category-renamer's mistake. Tempjrds (talk) 06:34, 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:Songs in memory of Kurt Cobain[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. Recategorise the one actual article, then delete the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems useless. Only 1 of these pages is not a redirect, and, from a quick glance, the song looks non-notable, so it could very well be a redirect in the future. Plus, it appears to be in memory of a lot of people, so Cobain is not a defining part of it. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:42, 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.

Natural history of California by region[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) 07:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional categories for discussion

...by region

...by county

Nominator's rationale: Categories were largely created by User:Look2See1 (blocked for disruptive editing; categorizing without consensus). Categories are currently populated primarily by organisms, most of which are overcategorized, placed in several of the listed categories and overlapping with similar categories.
The "Natural history of..." categories are largely duplicative of the existing "taxon X-of-location Y" system for flora, fauna, and other organisms (Category:Flora of California, Category:Fauna of California, etc.). Plants in particular have a specific categorization system at WP:PLANTS.
As parent categories, they seem redundant to the various "Biota of...", "Environment of..." and "Geography of...", and "Geology of..." categories.
Article space is more appropriate for detailing the composition/natural history/ecology of a habitat in a certain location, e.g. Ecology of the Sierra Nevada or California coastal prairie.
If these categories are retained, most of them will need to be almost completely emptied, as they should be restricted to categories and articles about the natural history of these locations. Species/Organism articles should not be directly categorized in any of these, but rather placed in their respective Category:Endemic flora of California or Category:Endemic fauna of California-type categories instead. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example category tree
C:Natural history of California
C:Natural history of California by county
C:Natural history of Butte County, California
C:Geology of Butte County, California

some geologic feature in Butte Co.

C:Endemic fauna of Butte County California

some animal only found in Butte Co.

C:Endemic flora of Butte County, California
C:Natural history of Calaveras County, California

etc.

C:Natural history of California by region
C:Natural history of the Channel Islands of California

C:Endemic fauna of the Channel Islands of California

Wildlife of the Channel Islands of California

etc.

  • I support the phasing out of categorization of species articles by small regions (except where endemic) as it often leads to articles being placed in categories for non-defining regions (e.g. regions that are not mentioned in the article text). However, this CFD needs to explain why the proposed deletion (not upmerge) wouldn't remove any good categorization. For example Category:Protected areas of the Colorado Desert is in Category:Natural history of the Colorado Desert and hence in Category:Colorado Desert - deletion of the cat:nhotcd might (incorrectly) remove cat:paotcd from cat:cd (note: it wouldn't currently because there's some redundant categorization, but that may not be the case for all such categories). DexDor (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I endorse the the general goals of this nom, but I also agree with the concerns expressed by DexDor. On one hand, ALL of the county cats should be deleted forthwith, for all sorts of reasons. Most of the others should go, as well. But some should probably/possibly be retained. (e.g. Category:Natural history of the Channel Islands of California)
Has the nominator notified the relevant WikiProjects? I think their assistance could be very helpful. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC) :@Hyperik:[reply]
WikiProject notification is done automatically - e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject California#Article_Alerts. It is also possible to put a note on each project's talk page, but in my experience the response rate to such notes is very low. It should also be noted that most/all bad/dubious categories are created without any prior wikiproject discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what I'm thinking is that they might help to comb thru the subcats and identify which are worth retaining. I take it the only Projects that get notified are those on the talk page -- but it's only listed with the California Project. What I had in mind was Projects where the editors are knowledgeable about Natural history.... (Environment, Biology, ???) Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:03, 23 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_22&oldid=1073192076"