Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:Country location map templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 1#Category:Country location map templates

Category:Fireboats of North America[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 09:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Fireboats by country which is the same as this cat + Category:Fireboats of the United Kingdom. --Trialpears (talk) 19:07, 20 September 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:One Buck Short[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 09:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete content includes one album, a song from the album, and the cover of the album. Insufficient per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Albums and songs subcategories already interlink to each other thanks to the albums and songs templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:58, 26 September 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:External services (broadcasting)[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 09:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article. Also, "external" is a bit confusing...external to what? They are all external to different countries, but sometimes also available domestically. Beland (talk) 15:23, 20 September 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:Austrian Empire military leaders of the French Revolutionary Wars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 23#Category:Austrian Empire military leaders of the French Revolutionary Wars

Category:Android (robot)[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 09:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less clumsy name. The currently existing Category:Androids should be moved to Category:Individual androids. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Android (robot) is the definition for the term. Androids are examples of androids. Individual androids is NOT appropriate, as these can be one offs, or a series of androids, all with the same model number. "Android (robot)" was created because someone wanted to make "Android (operating system)" - I vehemently disagreed at the time, but there were so many people supporting Android OS that none of my suggestions were listened to. Here, it should be "Android" (removing the "robots" would be great) & "Androids" is fine as it is thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not yet at the point in real life where the issue of defining a "series" of androids is pertinent. All the androids that exist today are one-off creations. If that point comes, we can create a new category called Category:Android production models or something. In any case, the proper category name should be plural, there is plenty of precedent, like Category:Cars, which is not Category:Car.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. You should have clicked on some of the androids in that category ... ASIMO, EveR, HRP-4C, Telenoid (and it's predecessors on that page "Geminoid"), and the Actroid all have more than one model. Some have three or more. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can be named similarly and be related, but there is no mass production of androids currently happening anywhere. Calling them models would be a stretch, as opposed to successive prototypes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would have probably supported this 10 years ago, but language has evolved, and most current uses of "android" refer to the OS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:51, 20 September 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:Android (robot) fiction[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 to Category:Androids in fiction. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far less clumsy naming scheme. Also nominating all child categories by extension. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposed name may be less clumsy but it would change the scope of the category for the worse. Renaming the category as proposed would be a make it a set category that lists works of fiction "about androids", which raises the question: How prominently must androids feature in a work of fiction for it to be deemed "about androids"? Such a category will inevitably be either a small set (fiction is rarely about a topic/concept, and instead works of fiction tend to contain one or more themes) or one that is subjective (based on personal standards), arbitrary (based on an arbitrary threshold), or trivial (e.g. any work of fiction that mentions androids). Category:Androids in fiction may be suitable, as a subcategory of Category:Robots in fiction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NONDEF, the scope of the category should never be "anything that contains androids". The category has to be a defining characteristic of the work. Whether it's defining should preferably be dependent on an external source saying something like, "this is a book about an android who...", not totally subjective on the Wikipedian's opinion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in part, but that's why I suggested the proposed category would be either a small set or one that is subjective, arbitrary, or trivial. Fiction is rarely about a single topic, and so there will be few works (i.e. a small set) that are meaningfully identified in an external source as being about androids. Relying on the presence of a formulaic expression in an external source along the lines of "this work is about an android" addresses the previous issue, but it renders the category arbitrary and, in my view, trivial. Over time, because finding sources to support categories requires effort, what will most likely happen is that the category will become bloated with articles on fiction that includes androids to varying degrees (i.e. subjective). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategories are already being used as subcategories set categories, the rename will not change that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I assume you meant "set categories"...) That is not entirely so. Some are, but others are not. Consider, for example, the films subcategory, which should be renamed to Category:Androids in film. As a category for the topic of androids in film, it would contain the article Alien: Covenant, which includes prose (see Alien: Covenant#Analysis) devoted to analysis of the android character in the film. As a category for the set of films about androids, it would not, because the film is plainly not about androids. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok this is an example of some prose about the topic (not enough prose to consider it a defining characteristic, I would say), but anyway it is highly exceptional. If your goal is to just keep articles with prose about the topic in the categories then we might just as well delete the categories because too few articles will be left. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would have supported this 10 years ago, but language has evolved and robots are no longer the primary meaning of the term android.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "about", either as Category:Fiction about androids per nom, or as Category:Fiction about androids (robots) per comment of Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Androids in fiction per Category:Robots in fiction, Category:Cyborgs in fiction, Category:Biorobotics in fiction, Category:Powered exoskeletons in fiction, , Category:Self-replicating machines in fiction, Category:Drones in fiction, etc etc etc. All these categories contain the fiction itself and allow subcategories for individual (or classes of) androids. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Androids in fiction. There are both parents categories and sub-categories using this naming scheme and moving them all there would be good for consistency. I do not see Johnpacklambert's concern about confusion ~in this case because of two reasons: The plural "androids" would rarely be refering to the operating system and in fiction gives sufficient context for confused readers to realize it isn't about the operating system. --Trialpears (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Androids in fiction or Category:Fiction about androids (indifferent to either, but slightly prefer the former), per Trialpears above. I also don't share Johnpacklambert's concern as the operating system refers to the singular "Android". Moreover, "androids" in plural form has a clear primary topic in that it refers to the human-like robots. I prefer the former because it seems like it's slightly more conventional. I contemplated closing this per TP's request for closure, as there's overwhelming consensus to rename. However, there's less consensus on what that target should be. Also, to Trialpears, if an editor closes a CfD to rename, won't that leave a redirect (and we normally don't use redirects in categories), or does XfDCloser just close the discussion and leaves the actual renaming up to an admin, bot or editor with page mover permissions to handle? Doug Mehus T·C 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus XFDCloser does basically nothing when closing CfDs. It doesn't remove tags, add old CfD, move any categories or update calls. Moving categories also require page mover permissions and manual work to make sure all pages are updated, or admin permissions to activate the bot at WP:CFDW. I would recommend that you wait a bit before closing CfDs. They're often involving several proposals and experience is required to determine when closing is appropriate or when some tags to previous participants or relisting is more appropriate. I myself find them significantly more difficult then the TfDs I usually close. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trialpears Thanks, I agree. CfD discussions often result in a dual upmerge or downmerge result, or the result is conflicted in the discussion, so I agree with you they're tricky in that respect. I'm glad I didn't close this one...it was better that I added my support to help solidify the consensus further. Doug Mehus T·C 16:14, 4 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:Transformers Alternators[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 merging and deletion are equivalent. MER-C 09:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific category. All articles are present in other series-related categories. TTN (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete per discussion below, neutral towards upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete As pointed out by the nominator in the "discussion below" the articles are already categorized properly in the rest of the category tree making upmerge and diffuse the same as deleting. Having categories for all similar distinctions (Rescue bots, Beast Machines, Targetmaster, Robot Masters, Powermasters etc) would be overcategorization making them over specific and non-defining for most enteries since the single series transformers for whom it would be defining aren't notable and mainstays would be categorized in a ton of these series categories without any of them being defining. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 8 October 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:Headmasters (Transformers)[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 merging and deletion are equivalent. MER-C 09:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific category. All articles are covered under multiple other categories based on the franchise. TTN (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete per discussion below, neutral towards upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete As pointed out by the nominator in the "discussion below" the articles are already categorized properly in the rest of the category tree making upmerge and diffuse the same as deleting. Having categories for all similar distinctions (Rescue bots, Beast Machines, Targetmaster, Robot Masters, Powermasters etc) would be overcategorization making them over specific and non-defining for most enteries since the single series transformers for whom it would be defining aren't notable and mainstays would be categorized in a ton of these series categories without any of them being defining. --Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 8 October 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:Cyberjets[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 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct category with only a single article, and no real categorization use in the first place. TTN (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all the other categories I nominated, almost every article is covered by other in-universe categories, so there is no reason to upmerge them. TTN (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TTN: It is not sufficient to check that articles would not be orphaned by deleting a category. It is also necessary to check whether they are otherwise contained within the specific parent categories of the category proposed for deletion. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Literally every Transformers category is covered under a single parent category, so they will always be covered no matter what is removed, with the exception of a few major categories in another subsection. TTN (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:50, 20 September 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:Disney voice 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: delete. MER-C 09:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize actors by employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Most actors perform as well as doing voice overs to cartoons and such like. PERFCAT is very much in point. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 22 September 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_September_20&oldid=929377042"