Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25[edit]

Category:Kunlun Red Star WIH[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. MER-C 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is for a Women's Ice Hockey team in Shenzhen. It currently contains a sub-category for players, and no other content. It was recently renamed from Category:Kunlun Red Star, with the rationale "C2D women's team was referred to as Kunlun Red Star WIH. User:Joeykai" but the current name of the team is Shenzhen KRS Vanke Rays. If not merged/deleted, then rename accordingly. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two should not be merged as one category is for the women's team and one is for the men's team. The main reason the women's category should be renamed is that it is currently at Category:Kunlun Red Star, while the article Kunlun Red Star redirects to the men's team. Joeykai (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai: It's not currently there; your speedy renaming nomination was processed.
I suggested merging because the main article for the women's team Shenzhen KRS Vanke Rays is already in category:HC Kunlun Red Star.
  1. Why is it worth keeping a category that has no content?
  2. If the category is not deleted/merged, why not rename it to the current name Shenzhen KRS Vanke Rays? – Fayenatic London 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with the category being renamed to Shenzhen KRS Vanke Rays. Joeykai (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the team is operated by Kunlun Red Star. Alternatively, if not merged, delete the category for lack of content. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 2 June 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:Italian Armenians[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. MER-C 10:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is an aberrant category. Most similar ones were converted to the target format several years ago. Care is needed in this case as many Armenians (members of the ethnic group) have no direct connection with the present republic of Armenia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 3 June 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:Fictional homosexuals[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 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, unusual categorization since we normally use "LGBT" as the umbrella term of gay males and lesbians. It is also a recreation of a previously deleted category. Note that the two subcategories are already in the tree of Category:Fictional LGBT characters so merging is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the previous CFD or explain why (and when) the category was previously deleted? DexDor (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as empty in 2006, referring to the talk page (now undeleted) which stated:
This category previously had only two members, both characters on Queer as Folk (U.S.). I confirmed that both were included in List of gay and bisexual people in film, radio, and TV fiction, removed them from this category, and added them to Category:Television drama characters.
This was followed by a rationale for not using CFD, and signed by User:Matchups.
As there was no CFD, the recreation is not a rationale for deletion. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it looks like it could do with a rename, rather than deletion, to something like Category:Fictional LGBT people (either way, shouldn't 'homosexual' be an adjective, not a noun?) Sionk (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters is a subcategory of Category:People. Dimadick (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hows about Category:Fictional LGBT characters then ...oh hold on, that exists. In which case we can delete the "Fictional homosexuals" category. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 28 May 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:Rectors of Northern Cyprus[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) 05:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:Turkish Cypriot people. Not sufficient rectors to justify their own category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the single article refers to someone who was once the rector of a college in N Cyprus. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- Rector appears here to mean the head of the university. In England, he would be Vice-Chancellor; elsewhere Chancellor or President. I suggest the neutral Category:Heads of universities in Northern Cyprus. It should be possible to populate it. The one person was replaced in 2010 and then became a Rector in Istambul. His successor may not have an article yet, but probably should and there appear to be several more universities in the same unrecognised polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in some manner. Scope and size issues aside, "Rector of Northern Cyprus" sounds like an Anglican priest (not particularly sensible in Northern Cyprus) or a government position. Use "university rectors..." if the category remains. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 25 May 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:Works by John Peel[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. It may be helpful to first discuss Category:John Peel albums in a fresh nomination and later, dependent on the outcome of that discussion, revisit Category:Works by John Peel once more. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With the only content being an albums subcategory, convention has just been to place it in the eponymous category (when an eponymous category is warranted). This just adds an unnecessary level of navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 25 May 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:Military musicians[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. MER-C 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all in the same class as Category:Musicians by band, and can be named in a similar manner. This would allow the more specific categories to be in the Musicians by band container category as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Corps of Army Music is not a band, it's a corps; every British Army musician is a member of it. This category is part of the Category:British Army soldiers tree, which refers only to non-commissioned soldiers, as opposed to Category:British Army officers (although there is currently no Category:Corps of Army Music officers, there could be). The nominator should have done a bit more research before including this category and it should be removed from the nomination. But in actual fact, there's no need to rename any of them. The current titles are the best. Military musicians are commonly called military musicians, not military band members (bandsmen once upon a time, yes, but that's generally been superseded) and putting them in Category:Musicians by band would be completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know that about the Corps of Army Music. Happy to back away from that one if the others pass. What I'd say to your greater point is that "musician" is not a rank in the US military. It's a job like cryptographer. So I could see Category:Military musicians staying as is. But the bands themselves are bands. Membership in them is not a job, it's an assignment. My somewhat tautological suggestion is that we should categorize these bands like bands because they're bands. And bands are categorized as "(band name) members."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because military bands inevitably consist of musicians and no non-musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 25 May 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:Hospital administrators[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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article and updating the fundamental concept. Hospitals in this century are not generally managed as self contained entities. If this proposal is accepted we may then want to consider whether any of the subcategories should stay as they are, or whether they should all follow suit. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Hospital administrators are a subset of Healthcare administrators. Oviously they're related, but they're not one and the same. As the Intro to the main article says, Healthcare administration includes several different fields: public health systems; health care systems; and hospitals and hospital networks.
This proposal becomes even more problematic when you look at the parent, Category:Healthcare managers, because there's no real difference between "managers" and "administrators". To make matters worse, there is a subcat called Category:Medical administrators, which probably should be merged into Category:Healthcare managers. And we really should settle on one term for these categories, either "managers" or "administrators". I prefer the latter. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because Category:Healthcare administrators would include people who do not run hopsitals. By all measn create the target as a parent for hospital and other medical administrators. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of the existing articles are not about hospital managers, or are about people who managed both hospitals and larger systems, were directors of nursing (a distinct discipline) or were ministers of health. A category for people who just managed hospitals would not have many articles. Merging managers, administrators and medical administrators into one overarching category is a good idea if we can agree suitable words, but these things work differently in different contexts.Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If many articles do not belong in this category, they should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 26 May 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:City of Cardiff Council elections[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 as nominated (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The local authority in Cardiff is not known commonly or officially as the City of Cardiff Council. Unfortunately this doesn't meet the speedy rename criteria because I've recently moved back the main article to Cardiff Council, because of a previous rename (against consensus). In addition to the benefits of matching the current title of the main article, the category could potentially hold the election articles for the previous manifestations of the local authority. Sionk (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Category:Cardiff City Council elections. Birmingham is officially City of Birmingham District Council, but everyone talks of Birmingham City Council. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed; the council is currently branding itself as Cardiff Council. Elections to previous manifestations of the authority should be included in the category regardless of its naming, as is done for other local authorities (consideration should be given to merging all the articles on the various incarnations too). Number 57 12:34, 27 May 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:Films adapted into video games[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 put this on the manual page to allow this to be listified. MER-C 08:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these films. DonIago (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the fact that "Works adapted for other media" exists does not supersede WP:CATDEF and the video game adaptations are not a defining characteristic of the film. Again a list article is sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep or at least listify. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, shouldn't the entire Category:Works adapted for other media be nominated for deletion/listification? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one could argue that a work being adapted into an opera is a more rare and notable occurrence. As for the rest, I'd have to give them some thought. If you want to open CfDs, nobody is stopping you. :) DonIago (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I think one could argue that a work being adapted into an opera is a more rare and notable occurrence." That would actually be grounds for deletion for opera-related categories. In Wikipedia, "rare" translates to "small category". Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but also clarify and restrict scope. I think this is a defining category, BUT, be more blunt that this category is for Actual Released Video Games directly of the movie (or perhaps the movie series, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (video game) being two movies in one game), not merely related fluff or a multi-media franchise (e.g. Pokemon films). I think a good gauge is if there is a stand-alone blue-linked article for the related video game and said game is clearly based on the movie and not the franchise in general or a loose "inspired by" deal. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is defining for the video games based on the films, not defining for the films themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very non-defining for the films; some (e.g. Das Boot) don't even mention any VG in the article. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. This category is about a non-defining characteristic of these films and shouldn't exist as a category. If someone wants to make a list article of these films, that's their personal choice. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 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:Films adapted into novels[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. A list of the current contents is available at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 25 (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these films. Many films, good and bad, are adapted into novels. DonIago (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the fact that "Works adapted for other media" exists does not supersede WP:CATDEF and the novel adaptations are not a defining characteristic of the film. Again a list article is sufficient. Gottaa strike this as a list article of these would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the extreme. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is 100% a nonefining characteristic for an individual film and does nothing but create overcategorization and confusing cases/debates like when a film/other work is "partially based" on something. A work does not change because it has been adapted into another media, its like if we had Films that have been remade category.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, keep or at least listify. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 26 May 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:Male motion capture actors[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. MER-C 10:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how being a motion capture actor constitutes a defining category, especially as motion capture use seems likely to only become more prevalent over time. DonIago (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just like we have cats for voice actors and video game actors. However, I wouldn't be opposed to combining male and female into one category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to merging the genders if that's where this conversation goes. DonIago (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For consistency reasons. Though I have my doubts about the scope of the category. Is motion capture all that different from traditional rotoscoping? It has been in use since 1915, and has been used extensively in animation. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps if the category was changed in scope to actors known primarily for motion capture and such? Though I'm not sure how one could make that verifiable. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One could also say that Theater and Television acting is not that different from Film acting, yet Wikipedia has separate categories for theater actors which I question to an extent. As far as voice acting goes I'd argue that that is by far more different than any of those and doesn't really belong in a debate like this.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 25 May 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_May_25&oldid=1073192224"