Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19[edit]

Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs

Category:Blocked historical users[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is there a reason for this to exist when it's always empty and is no longer used Dq209 (talk) 19:36, 19 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:Sociology of art[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 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, unnecessary category layer with only the main article and a subcategory. I have added the main article in the header of the subcategory in order to keep it all together. There is no need to merge, the main article is already in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 19 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:Walking art[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 17:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune - most contents are biographies that should go to a Category:Walking artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (suitably thinned out). That will leave 8 or so articles (see under L, W etc), which is enough. This is a branch of Land art, as I have just categorized it - it was very poorly set up & populated - I had to add A Line Made by Walking, which ought to have been the most obvious first article to include. It is certainly defining for that & a number of other articles, but very likely not all now in the category. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - now thinned from 31 to 19. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, category of art defining for certain pieces. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:42, 19 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:Kurdistan Region[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, adding a disambiguator because Kurdistan stretches among multiple countries while this category is only about the autonomous region in Iraq, and for consistency with the consensus in this earlier discussion. Buildings and structures, disestablishments, economy and establishments categories are usually created for countries and subdivisions, so Kurdistan Region (Iraq) is a more appropriate scope for them than the more loosely defined Iraqi Kurdistan region. Note that I left out the Geography and History categories from this nomination, the history category certainly encompasses more than just the recent autonomous region, and the geography category perhaps as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a sensible solution. Kurdistan means something like the Land of the Kurds, who are a people spread across Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. We do not yet have a formal name for the area of Syria controlled by the (Kurdish) Syrian Democratic Forces, but this is also a Kurdish region. Those in Iran and Turkey are suppressed, leading in the latter case to an insurgency. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 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:Here! original productions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Here! original productions

Category:Junior Network shows[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Junior Network shows

Category:Dragon (spacecraft)[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. Also would have been valid use of speedy criterion C2D. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conforming with the main article SpaceX Dragon. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:37, 19 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:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador[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 the first to Category:Fauna of Atlantic Canada, and the second to Category:Endemic fauna of Newfoundland (island), moving marine fish & the list from the second into the first. Note: I believe there is sufficient consensus here to do something, even though there was not agreement on exactly what, so I have been somewhat creative and chosen new names/purposes that fit with siblings, e.g. Category:Fauna of the Northeastern United States which does contain Atlantic fish. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The N&L category was deleted in 2007, but then re-created (without any discussion afaics).
Like many fauna-of-place categories this categorizes some articles (e.g. Atlantic herring, Blue ling) by a non-defining characteristic whilst the categories are also so incomplete that they don't work as lists. DexDor (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Oppose as creator. I have no particular concern regarding Category:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador; I created it but I have a feeling I did so specifically because I wanted it as the parent category for the subcategory for the island, so there's no strong reason to keep this one. I was not aware at the time that I was recreating a deleted category. That said, I oppose deletion/merging of Category:Fauna of Newfoundland (island), on the grounds that it exists specifically because of the genetic distinctions between the various subspecies of mammals on the island and their mainland counterparts (Newfoundland pine marten, Newfoundland black bear, Newfoundland wolf, etc.). While I'm not a biologist, my understanding from these pages and others is that the genetic distinction exists in part due to isolation on the island, and that suggests to me a legitimate reason to have a category specifically tagging these animals as such. (I have no idea who added the various fish to the supercategory, I didn't put them here.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two plausible options, each of which I'd be fairly happy with:
  1. merge the N&L category to the Canada one, but keep the island one - Newfoundland is probably large enough and distant enough from the mainland to have its own island ecosystem with separate fauna.
  2. (which might be better) widen the scope of the N&L category to become Fauna of Eastern Canada (or the Maritime Provinces), and merge the island category into that. I note that the Great Plains and Western Canada have their own fauna categories and it's arguable that the Atlantic coast deserves similar categorisation.
Grutness...wha? 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, in relation to this, Newfoundland and Labrador is not considered one of the Maritime Provinces.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - would either Eastern Canada or Atlantic Canadian do? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we went with your option 2, I think Atlantic Canada would be the better choice (Eastern Canada is more of a subjective designation; Atlantic Canada is not). That said, I think option 1 is the better choice, as it relates specifically to the genetic variation apparently induced by geographic isolation.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:09, 21 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:Viacom Media Networks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Viacom Media Networks

Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle

Dunedin Sound categories[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: The correct capitalisation of the genre is "Dunedin Sound" - check google, and you'll see that all (or almost all) hits from within the music industry use that form, as do all Dunedin-based sites. If anything, the term "The Dunedin Sound" might be more appropriate, but given that its US sibling, the Paisley Underground simply capitalises both words and foregoes the definite article, that is probably the better form here. Using a lower case form is also confusing - are these sound albums from Dunedin, as opposed to, say, photographic ones? Using a capital for the word Sound also emphasises that Dunedin Sound is the genre, rather than these being musicians and musical works simply from Dunedin (a big overlap, but not all Dunedin Sound musicians are Dunedinites, and vice versa. FWIW, at least a couple of these albums were originally at the capitalised form and moved to the current form using WP:RM/TR, which is supposed to be only for non-controversial moves. Unfortunately, since no template is added to categories which are up for RM/TR (why not?), I didn't find out about it at the time.Grutness...wha? 04:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename: This fits the speedy criteria. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hesitant to do that since I renamed the article to the capitalised form myself. Didn't want it to look like I was pushing through an agenda. Grutness...wha? 15:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct, it could not have been speedied under these circumstances. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree that it should be capitalised throughout. Oculi (talk) 18:05, 19 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:Lists of fictional works[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 to Category:Lists of fictional things. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT most of the articles in this category were (rightfully) deleted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:36, 19 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_19&oldid=949946210"