Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Change disambiguator from "genus" to "butterfly" or "moth"[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 all Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D The main articles have been renamed to match with the disambiguator used by most others in the series. Changing the disambiguators to match article titles.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Altered rational above. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category names should match article titles (and (moth)/(butterfly) are more consistently used disambiguators than (genus) for articles on Lepidoptera genera). Plantdrew (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2020 (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:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk[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: not a clear consensus, so split to a new sub-cat as suggested by some. Without the current category, I am not sure how the new sub-cat should be parented. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC)
This category groups people associated with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia left WWI and negotiated a separate treaty with the Central Powers. The problem is that the diplomats and national leaders involved in that negotiation were, well, diplomats and national leaders who also did other stuff. Anastasia Bitsenko is an outlier who does seem defined by this treaty but none of the others do, including Prince Leopold of Bavaria and Leon Trotsky. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So the people associated with it also did other stuff - so what? It's a treaty of global significance. It's useful to have all the stuff in 1 place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other stuff I was referring to was really the many other treaties under Category:Treaties of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Category:Treaties of the German Empire that they also often worked on. I don't think that will change your opinion but I should have been more specific. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a characteristic that is defining for these individuals. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it may need purging. This was a highly important treaty, so that being one of it negotiators is highly defining, but I suspect that some of the people were only vaguely associated (and should thus be purged). Perhaps rename to Category:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk negotiators. PERFCAT is about avoiding clutter where the issue is a brief passing event. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with pruning. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, this could be implemented as rename and purge the main article and Decree on Peace (the latter does not really belong here anwyay). I would support that as a second best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same thing. The current category contents is basically a people cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (supporting my response above). We do not need to create a separate people category, only rename as all the articles are bio-articles, except one main article on the treaty. Oculi's proposal would leave us with a category consisting just of a main article and a subcat; such categories regularly get deleted, commonly as eponymous. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (upmerging non-bio articles if necessary). This is in effect a "people associated with" category that is non-defining e.g. for Prince Leopold of Bavaria. Anybody interested in topics (including people) related to the treaty should look at links (especially if there's a navbox) in the article about the treaty. DexDor (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (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:Documentaries about lesbians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Category:Documentaries about lesbians

Category:Documentaries about gay men[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 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an "about" category, without an object view of how much "about" the subject must be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a reason to delete all "about" categories, however it is not a reason to remove content from those trees at random just because they happen to be discussed at CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2020 (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:Documentaries about same-sex marriage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Category:Documentaries about same-sex marriage

Category:Documentaries about bisexuality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Category:Documentaries about bisexuality

Category:People from Metro[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 rename. – Fayenatic London 06:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D. OktaRama2010 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (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:Metro[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 rename. – Fayenatic London 06:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D. OktaRama2010 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom, especially since Metro is a disambiguation page. Nothing more to say. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be renamed as Metro is a common abbreviation for metropolitan. In its present form, it is likely to pick up irrelevant entries by mistake. The precedent for this is Birmingham. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2020 (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:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia[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. Consensus exists that the information in this category is better rendered in the list article Minority languages of Croatia. bibliomaniac15 05:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this category concerns two municipalities, Daruvar with 11.000 people of which 20% Czech-speaking, and Koncanica with 2.000 people of which half Czech-speaking. Both municipalities are mentioned in the list article Minority languages of Croatia. The two other articles in the category are villages in the municipality of Daruvar. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hungarian and Italian have the same problem as Czech: small places and even in within those places there is only a small minority of people speaking the language. I wouldn't consider it a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Alt proposal by Laurel Lodged.--Darwinek (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt merge --Calthinus (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as non-defining trivia. Weak support for alt merge. This is article material, not for a category. Place Clichy (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently not WP:defining. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, non-standard and non-permanent. Villages etc are sufficiently categorized by populated-places-in-<county> categories. DexDor (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both communities, especially Daruvar, are reasonably well known in Croatia for their Czech minority status. There is however the SMALLCAT problem. I'm inclined to support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Daß Wölf 11:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No real consensus at the moment. More discussion needs to take place about whether the category is perhaps a WP:NOTDEFINING or WP:SMALLCAT situation, or whether the alt merge is the best course of action. It is very likely that the outcome of this case will set a certain precedent in terms of "minority-language areas," and this needs to be further discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Category:Czech-speaking Territorial Units of Croatia" into the article titled "Minority Languages in Croatia". This will make a lot more sense. --JTZegers (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In other words, listify content and delete category, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify This doesn't seem defining.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally don't categorize places by what language is spoken there (by how many? when? does it have official status?) In how many categories would we find London, New York, or nearly any major world city. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Nice as it might be to have such a category, it will never make a viable category. This is probably referring to an indigenous language, which in London or New York could only be English, so that I do not accept the validity of the last point made. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2020 (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:Narayani Zone geography stubs[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 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zones have been superseded by provinces in Nepal; category is now empty except for stub template. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - actually, assuming the template's goes this could simply be deleted as a G8 (category populated by redirected or deleted template) Grutness...wha? 04:40, 25 April 2020 (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.

Template:Narayani-geo-stub[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 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zones have been superseded by provinces in Nepal; this template is no longer needed. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:21, 23 April 2020 (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:Soldiers of Massachusetts[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:Military personnel from colonial Massachusetts. There's a consensus that the colonial aspect should be preserved. I'm closing as "from" in light of it being the more common usage in Category:People from Massachusetts and Category:Military personnel from Massachusetts. bibliomaniac15 05:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Military personnel from Massachusetts is part of the developed Category:American military personnel by state. This category is not part of any category tree and the only one of its kind. User:Namiba 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Grutness, despite the low population. Macrocapelle's alternative is less good, but would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2020 (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.

Infobox television season tracking categories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#Infobox television season tracking categories

Category:Television series with two or more creators[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 WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is WP:NOTDEFINING for any of the articles in the category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Amaury • 17:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think having multiple creators is much more common than having a sole creator credited. Television is a collaborative medium. Dimadick (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not relevant to the discussion but just had to comment, "creator" is not "people involved with the creation of the series", it's actually a specific credit. It's usually 1 or 2, hardly ever many. --Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the reasons outlined. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dimadick. - Brojam (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. TheTVExpert (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOW. Closing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 28 April 2020 (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:People from Remington, Indiana[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) buidhe 09:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without too much effort I found two other articles that fit into this category. The community is small, but with 5 entries I don't think WP:SMALLCAT necessarily applies. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems rather pedantic to argue that someone isn't associated with a town if they grew up on an adjacent farm or some other immediate area.--User:Namiba 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Namiba: You bring up immediate area. Somebody lives in 120 block of Pond Path in Centereach New York. What is across the street? Lake Grove New York. That person moves to Lighthouse Point, Florida 2900 block of 53rd street, that is less than two blocks away from Deerfield Beach. Oh and Lighthouse Point is the same zip code as Pompano Beach. Same person eventually moves to unincorporated Lantana, zip code 33462. 33462 zip code includes Hypoluxo, Atlantis, and two other communities. That person eventually moved to 33435 zip code or to Boynton Beach Florida. 33435 zip code includes Boynton Beach, Briny Breezes, Delray Beach, and a few other places. This person lived in three communities, but there are another dozen or so that are 'immediate area' as you would term it. I guess you think it right to categorize from all those places which would be about 10-12 assuming all of them have People from categories. Pedantic? Horse shit, it is being accurate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a sufficiently large category with 5 articles. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (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:Public finance of the United Kingdom[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Category:Public finance of the United Kingdom" states that its head article is "Government spending in the United Kingdom". Our article on public finance states that it is the branch of economics that analyzes the public sector, which doesn't describe the category's contents. buidhe 02:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category content is not just about spending but also about income (taxes) and generating cash (bonds). I would be open to an alternative rename because of nom's reasons but then at least to a broader name. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle; finance is both income and outgo. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There might be a case for reverse merging, except that the target for the devolved administration finance should be their respective subcategories. If anything, it may be the article that needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (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:Evening Standard Pub of the Year 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. MER-C 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD) and, for the parent category, the spirit of WP:C2F
The Evening Standard newspaper in London recognizes one pub each year. The articles generally do mention the award but near the end of the article, not in the lede, and this doesn't seem defining since these are already well established businesses. The contents are already listified here. The parent category only contains an eponymous redirect. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2020 (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:FPRA Awards[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 12:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category
The Fiji Performing Rights Association is a copyright collective which hosts the FPRA Music Awards. We don't have a separate article on the awards and the only thing in this category is that same organisation article, Fiji Performing Rights Association, which doesn't belong. There's nothing here to categorize! The actual award winners are already listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2020 (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:Tsunami[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. bibliomaniac15 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same scope of the articles. For example, there are no Category:Earthquake or Category:Disaster. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As with Category:Flood and Category:Floods, one should be about the science related to the subject and one about the individual events. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Something Or Else Merge I can see how each category would independently comply with WP:TOPICCAT and WP:SETCAT but having both is going to be a maintenance issue. Maybe an alternate word (Tsunamiology?) for the former or, even though I generally don't like this construction, Category:Individual tsunamis for the latter to make the distinction clearer. If not, they should be merged. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is entirely standard to use singular for the topic category and plural for the set category. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Lets not make waves here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:58, 23 April 2020 (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/2020_April_23&oldid=1073192377"