Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Category:Fictional airborne aircraft carriers[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 20:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. Should be merged into Category:Fictional airships and Category:Fictional aircraft carriers. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:45, 15 February 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.

LGBT and[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 17:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename avoiding the redundant words "topics" and "community", and aligning the format with many siblings in Category:LGBT. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But would ask if ageing defining for LGBT? Doesn't everybody age? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For articles such as LGBT Aging Project both LGBT and aging are defining. DexDor (talk) 19:44, 15 February 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.

Historical sanctuaries[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. – Fayenatic London 19:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, apart from religious sanctuaries (in a separate subcategory) this is is a case of WP:SHAREDNAME, these are historic sites that happen to have "sanctuary" in the name. Note: most of the content is already otherwise in the target categories, so it's not recommendable to have the merge implemented by the bot. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support bu t if kept, rename to "Historic.." Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanctuary is not a (historic) site, it is a concept. Just because the concept is under attack it is no reason to cauterize it incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.74.7 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The items in this category are sites. Besides I can't see how we can populate a category just about this concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 28 February 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:Insects acting as insect pest control agents[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearer name and consistency with, for example, Category:Diptera used as pest control agents. Really, this category (and others) should be deleted/listified because it's often a non-defining characteristic (e.g. for articles such as Mantis, Hornet and Odonata). For info: related 2016 CFD DexDor (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom, and - like in the previous discussion - I do not oppose listifying/deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 15 February 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:English athletes[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 admin action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Surely a category cannot be both diffusing and non-diffusing at the same time? Rathfelder (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is an understandable misunderstanding. Non-diffusing is about the relationship with the (British) parent category, diffusing is about the relationship with the subcategories (by sports). That can happen at the same time. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have some words which make this clearer? Rathfelder (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can copy this discussion to the category talk page if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could, but I'm not sure everyone would understand. Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: please just go ahead with adding some words to make this clearer and let us then close this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • done that. I think these categories should be containerised, not just diffused. Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 22 February 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:Beneficial insects[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 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a vague category - for example, should it apply to insects that are generally considered pests (e.g. Red imported fire ant), but may also provide some benefit (also some insects are beneficial to humans at one stage of life but a pest at another stage). It's also non-defining in many cases (e.g. Eastern yellowjacket). No other animals (or plants) (e.g. spiders, fish, birds) are categorized for being beneficial.  Note: There are alternative categories (such as Category:Pollinator insects) which are less vague and do a better job of grouping similar articles. DexDor (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pretty speciesist, too. As the article says, The concept of beneficial is subjective and only arises in light of desired outcomes from a human perspective. So in the broad sense of the term it should mean beneficial to other animals in general (and as part of an ecosystem, almost all insects would count), and in the narrow sense it's described as subjective. Either way it's a clumsy subject for a category. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 16 February 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:Italian American heavy metal 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: selective merge to Category:American heavy metal musicians or sub-cat, then merge to Category:American people of Italian descent. – Fayenatic London 09:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 9#Various American musicians of x descent cats. Nothing about heavy metal is unique to Italian Americans. feminist (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created that page, since there's a lot of Italian Americans in metal and thought it could help. MetalSword (talk) 11:50, 15 February 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:This Movie Sucks! episodes[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 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially WP:PERFCAT, categorizing films for their having been featured as episodes of a short-lived cult anthology series. This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these films. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 15 February 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:Serie A de México players[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 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serie A and Serie B both covered in Category:Liga Premier de México players JTtheOG (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is no point in keeping this category when nobody bothers about populating it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:11, 17 February 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:Populated places in Province No. 4[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 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Province has been officially renamed. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 01:08, 15 February 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_February_15&oldid=949928924"