Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles for historical figures placed into a category about fictional interpretations of them. It seems navigationally pointless and improper categorization, and there's unlikely to ever be any articles on the fictional versions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting If you look at the Talk page of the Category, then you would see that concerns similar to yours have been brought up before. Characters don't have to be fictional, they can be historical figures as well. By the definition of the word "Character", the categorization is correct. Now I understand that it can probably cause some confusion for some WP users, so instead of deleting I think it should be made clear on the page that although many of the characters in Ertugrul are "based" on historical figures, they are still highly fictionalized. Or the category can be renamed to "Historical figures featured on Diriliş: Ertuğrul. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on the talk page addresses none of the issues. Categories are supposed to help with navigation, but that is impossible in this case. These articles have nothing to do with the show. It's improper to categorize them in such a way, and there are thousands upon thousands of series that use historical/mythological characters. There would be no justification in doing that with any of those series either. TTN (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this concern is that it is probably OK to link to the historical characters in an article about the series (except in relatively rare cases when there is a dedicated article, such as Cultural depictions of Hannibal), but adding these articles to a category about the series is wrong. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a "games" subcategory of this video game series. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 27 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:BloodRayne 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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that it is originally a video game series, there is no need for a subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 27 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:Terms for males[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 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as below - "males" is an awkward way of saying it, and isn't clear that it refers to humans. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. This is the best solution to group these terms. To move the contents up to a parent category would unnecessarily clutter and confuse that category. Hmains (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom - content of these categories is specific to human (fe)males. Content is also restricted to terminology, unlike many other terms... categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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:Terms for females[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 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Females" is an awkward way of saying it and isn't quite as clear that it's about female humans. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. This is the best solution to group these terms. To move the contents up to a parent category would unnecessarily clutter and confuse that category. Hmains (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom - content of these categories is specific to human (fe)males. Content is also restricted to terminology, unlike many other terms... categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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.

Healthcare[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 09:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Health care. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_16#Category:Health_care where there was no agreement on standardising on the spelling Healthcare. So can we agree on uniformity this way round? NB there is no uniformity or pattern that I can detect in the use of these words in the literature. Its not uncommon for both spellings to appear in the same article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I mostly care for standardization, but this direction is my preference due to consistency with the article. --Trialpears (talk) 19:35, 13 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:Television stations in Ponce, Puerto Rico[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) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Media in Ponce, Puerto Rico? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging. Ponce, Puerto Rico falls under the purvey of the U.S. FCC for TV licensing and FCC TV licenses are issued to cities ("Ponce, PR") not the state-level government entity ("Puerto Rico", as it's being proposed). In addition, in WP it is standard procedure to categorize US TV stations by city, as shown Here. Mercy11 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging. Ponce is a city and a municipality of Puerto Rico. What is redundant about that? I don't see this category being redundant. Would you also want to merge the TV Stations in the U.S. from their respective city, state and only have a category for the state? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:29, 27 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:Indian film actors working since their childhood[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 manually to Category:Indian film actors and/or Category:Indian child actors‎ as appropriate. MER-C 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF and WP:ARBITRARYCAT, there are no other working since their childhood categories. Brandmeistertalk 09:44, 27 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:Stock characters in moe 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: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was mentioned in the CFD discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18#Category:Moe_attributes which has now been deleted. The CFD reasoning for this one is the same: the inclusion criteria are rather arbitrary, not mentioned on the linked articles, violating WP:COATRACK and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. HalJor (talk) 03:21, 27 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_27&oldid=922008787"