Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Category:JoJo Siwa[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Siwa's use in a video game does not warrant the need for this eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit my granddaughter loves Jojo Siwa, but I had no clue this was a real person until just now, I guess I had assumed when she mentioned this name she was referring to a cartoon. Categorization follows articles, and there is no need for a category to group 3 articles. We also have refused to accept that every artistic creator of x type of works category needed to have the relevant eponomous category name. There is no justification for having a Jojo Siwa category. I know my granddaughter would be disappointed with this outcome, but eponomous categories are not meant to reflect that someone is notable or famous or virtous or anything else, they merely reflect there are lots of articles that can be grouped under that subject, and we do not have that yet here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 10 December 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:Films by demographic[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I feel like these two categories have the same scope. ★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Disclosure: in the previous discussion I said we might go further than that, which may in the end have contributed to a no-consensus close, so this time I'll stay on the safe side. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no difference here. Although I always though Category:Adult films was essentially a euphimism for pornographic films. So I do not think either of these super categories really describe what adult films are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 10 December 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:Career-oriented social networking markets[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've no strong views on this one, whether it gets renamed or eg merged into Category:Employment websites, but it's just an awful name for a category. Corresponding Career-oriented social networking market is just a deep redirect into Social networking service, so at the very least "markets" should be replaced by "services" but something shorter would be nice. Le Deluge (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, shorter and just as clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind a rename. What about just using an abbreviation, ie CoSNM, or CoSNS or something ?--Genetics4good (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We generally avoid abbreviations, unless they are clearly the common name. The fact that you propose two different abbreviations makes it quite unlikely that either one of them is clearly the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 13 December 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:2020 identifications[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The intention behind this is to date when bodies were identified. The fact that it was uncategorised suggests that the creator had not looked at the hierarchy and was unaware that this is not something we normally categorise by. I suggest that it's not particularly WP:DEFINING - and the only article in it is already well categorised. Le Deluge (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a nightmare waiting to happen. The year a body was identified is not defining, especially since it is normally the year the person was killed. So either this will be essentially an overlap of murder by year x, or we will constantly fight to keep it from becoming such an overlap. Anyway, we do not lack for categories to put murder victims in, so this is not a needed category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 10 December 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:Game Source Entertainment[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have no article on Game Source Entertainment and as far as I can tell from the articles tagged with it, it's just a secondary publisher in some Far East markets rather than the originator of the games. Edit: it looks like Draft:Game Source Entertainment failed AFC back in March and was removed in October, which prompted the single-purpose account that created it to create the category. Le Deluge (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in these articles this is an overcategorization by secondary marketer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 10 December 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:Starfleet nurses[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:Starfleet nurses

Category:Protoscience[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. (All of the articles in it at the time of this close are in Category:History of science or a subcategory of it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The previous result was to Delete: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Protoscience. But for some reason, this category was re-created back in April 2020 [1] and the user added four articles to it (excluding the Protoscience article itself), three of which do not mention "protoscience" anywhere in the articles. It should be deleted again per the previous rationale of the closer: "consensus is that this term is ambiguous enough that it does not provide useful categorization. In other words, the inclusion criteria are so unclear that it's difficult to even evaluate whether this category is defining." Some1 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this discussion started, let's then also have it run its course. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:G4. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Our current categorization of topics within pseudoscience is very broad, inaccurate, and unhelpful to readers in navigating the project. This category allows differentiation between complete pseudoscience (witch doctors, psychics, snake oil, etc) and those systems which have some early contribution to a science (e.g., alchemy). This use is supported by numerous scholarly articles, research papers, dictionaries, and articles outside our own, including sister sites and even Wikiversity. And there is no other feasible way to find such articles on our project, as even search mixes in every single article that transcludes an unrelated template.   — C M B J   08:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that alchemy may have had some contribution to science can be described in the Alchemy article, but protoscience is not a defining characteristic of alchemy. Pseudoscience is. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:History of science, leaving redirect. Protoscience may be a useful concept for analysing academic studies before the emergence of what we now recognise as science. That is something very different from pseudoscience. However the boundaries are very blurred as to when it stopped being "proto" and was shorn of mysterious aspects. This applies to astrology/astronomy and alchemy/chemistry. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 11 December 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:Grand Masters of the Order of Petrovic Njegos[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Petrović Njegoš is a dynastic order from Montenegro, given to Montenegrin Princes and other more distantly related European Princes. Being a prince is defining which is why, without exception, everyone in this category is already in Category:Princes of Montenegro or elsewhere in Category:Princes by country, so this category is redundant. There is already a list here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 7 December 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:Recipients of the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal is a campaign medal for all foreign soldiers who participated in the Australian led Operation Astute during the 2006 East Timorese crisis. While a large number of soldiers must have received the award, right now the category has three articles all of whom are also under Category:Australian military personnel of the International Force for East Timor. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 7 December 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_December_7&oldid=998118162"