Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 13 January 15 >

January 14[edit]

Category:Post-apocalyptic 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: keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be either deleted or renamed to have a narrower definition. As it stands, I feel that this category is too much of an umbrella category that is better served by existing categories, e.g. "Post-apocalyptic video games‎" and "Post-apocalyptic fiction" in general. Waxworker (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category also contains four articles that do not belong in either of the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Umbrella categories are quite usefull. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 18 January 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:Middle-earth bodies of water[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 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dead Marshes is the only non-redirect entry in the category. This category should be merged to the parent category of Middle-earth locations because Middle-earth bodies of water are not relevant as a group. Hog Farm (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if we want to keep the redirects categorized then we have 21 entries in this category, which is a decent enough number to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. The fact that these are all redirects makes the nominator's point regarding the relevancy of this category. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I must again protest against the dismantling of elegantly categorised redirects. I am surprised that closers do not take into account the guidelines on categorising redirects (eg Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects#Article_categories). Also a competent nominator would look to see whether there are other parent categories to which upmerges should be made. Oculi (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi:I'm a little confused by your comment that a "competent nominator" would look for parent categories to upmerge to, given that I am literally requesting an upmerge to the category's parent cat. Are you suggesting that I should have suggested a different merge target, or did you misread the nom and think I was suggesting delete? Furthermore, we already have Category:Middle-earth redirects, which is what WP:RCAT seems to suggest. We can put the redirects into Category:Middle-earth redirects instead of the article category. RCAT states "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories; however, there are exceptions" and in my opinion, none of those exceptions are applicable here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the couple articles to the proposed category. Merge to/create a category for the redirects as per most other fictional franchises. There's no need to an expansive labyrinth of regular categories for 99% redirect articles. TTN (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most of these redirects go to geography of middle earth where they are not actually described and so will probably be deleted. The others mainly go to Gondor or Numenor, two articles in severe need of being trimmed down to a reasonable size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 15 January 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:Middle-earth hills[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 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Weathertop is the only entry that is not a redirect, this category is an example of overcategorization. Middle-earth hills are not relevant as a group. Hog Farm (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if we want to keep the redirects categorized then we have 16 entries in this category, which is a decent enough number to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comment in the discussion above regarding water masses. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my views above. Oculi (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the single article to the proposed category. Merge to/create a category for the redirects as per most other fictional franchises. There's no need to an expansive labyrinth of regular categories for 99% redirect articles. TTN (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Tolkiencruft is one of the oldest and most entreched forms of fancruft. We would probably be afflicted with it even if Wikipedia was not born in the heart of the LotR films era. It has only been since October of last year that "it is Tolkien, it is notable, and this name is dropped in this one article once" no longer served to keep everything related to Tolkien. However in the process we are unreasonably burdened by unneded redirects. The classic one is the result of deleting the article "minor places of Beleriqand" which has come to be code named "minor places in a minor land." 90% of the Tolkien redirects need to be deleted, and we are in the process of seeing them get deleted. Wikipedia has too many categories related to Tolkien. I almost think we should make one grand Category:Tolkien, throw everything there, and then split it out in a more orderly way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 15 January 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:Loredana Zefi concert tours[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 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the point of a cat with at present no content. There might be anone article, but imo it was not up to scrtch & I redirected it to the artist. TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if there is no objection against the edit in article space, the category can be deleted as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 15 January 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 Manchester (district)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#Category:People from Manchester (district)

Category:Former Greek towns in Turkey[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. MER-C 19:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Where does this end? Former British towns in the United States or India? If we had to categorise every populated place by former country we'd be here for ever - and there's a nagging political point that perhaps they ought to be "returned" to the former country. Le Deluge (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose keeping This begins and ends with towns that were overwhelming populated by Greeks pre 1922 in Turkey. There are not many towns like these (as most Ottoman towns had a diverse mix of peoples) and as a result the list is small but relevant and interesting nonetheless that there were small enclaves almost exclusively made up of Greek Ottoman citizens. The list includes abandoned towns (see Kayaköy) which is also relevant and interesting to reader. There is no political angle here - just simply a category that helps explain former demographics of small towns and local history in the Republic of Turkey. These kind of categories have no agenda other than to inform - like Category:Ottoman architecture in Greece, Category:Greeks of the Ottoman Empire or Category:Ottoman Greece. Reaper7 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree entirely with Reaper7; this is a valid category, the comparison made by the nominator is not appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid historical category. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dimadick. I'd say more, not just a valid category, but an important one. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the one hand unclear inclusion criteria because what ÷ of the population should have been Greek in order to qualify for this category? While on the other hand any answer to that question would be an arbitrary cutoff. This is more suitable as a list than as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The western coast of Asia Minor (now Turkey) had a large Greek population from 1st millennium BC until an exchange of population with Greece in the 1920s. This is a valid historic category. I fear that the nom has failed to understand the basis of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 15 January 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 based on 2000 AD (comics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#Category:Films based on 2000 AD (comics)

Category:Judge Dredd films[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 parents. MER-C 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and a completely empty subcategory, too little to deserve a separate category. Merge to at least Category:Judge Dredd and perhaps other parent categories as well. JIP | Talk 10:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but @JIP: why adding "perhaps" with respect to the other parent categories? I am assuming they are all valid merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all parents except Category:British films (as in other subcats of that one). – Fayenatic London 08:59, 20 January 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:Deaths in Manchester[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. MER-C 19:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article. Not a defining characteristic Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it now has 5 articles in it & there are other articles which are eligible for inclusion in the cat. Not having been populated yet isn't a reason to delete it. Where a person died is a significant fact in their biography, typically stated in the ibox & body of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Place of death is the sort of factoid often used in categorisation (like year of death, year of birth). There is a whole Category:Burials tree for instance. Oculi (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the modern burials are also non-defining. Burials matter for people for whom they are a primary sources of evidence. Rathfelder (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cfds have not supported your views on burials. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category has scope for expansion, and death is defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly we could have several thousand categories "Deaths in someplace", but in general the place of death is not very defining. I cant see why we need to break them down into small geographical areas. Category:Deaths in England by location is pretty sparse, as are similar categories for many other countries. Rathfelder (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because most of the articles which are eligible for those cats haven't been put in them yet. Jim Michael (talk) 00:48, 17 January 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:Architects from Manchester[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: do not merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough to justify categories for 10 boroughs Rathfelder (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of Category:People from Manchester; entirely standard. Oculi (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are plenty of articles in it & it's a standard people by occupation & location cat. Jim Michael (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 13 articles. But there are a lot less for the other boroughs in Greater Manchester. It's a myth to suggest that there are standard people by occupation & location categories. Why is it more standard to go for the borough than what was formerly the county? The parent category is Category:English architects by county. Some of the counties are subdivided, but most are not. It's an entirely pragmatic decision as to what geography to go for. On closer inspection most of the articles are about architects from the other boroughs, and only 5 are from Manchester. Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The parent cat is Category:English architects by city. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious what "by city" means in the case of Manchester. Clearly more than half the writers of those articles regarded Stockport, Bury etc as being Manchester. And people from those places cant go into a "by county" category because they arent in a county. Sensible course is to treat Greater Manchester as the city.Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester means the City of Manchester. If there are articles which are wrongly categorised, they should be put in the correct category. Greater Manchester is the county which contains Manchester. That's why Category:Architects from Manchester is a subcat of Category:English architects by city & Category:Architects from Greater Manchester, the latter of which is a subcat of Category:English architects by county. GM is certainly a county & has been continuously since it was created in 1974 & should not be regarded as a city. Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that "Manchester means the City of Manchester". Clearly more than half of the editors of these articles didnt. Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the common & correct usage. Manchester & Category:Manchester are about the city. The fact that some articles have been put in the wrong cats is not a reason to delete cats. Jim Michael (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jim's explication above, and tidy to remove people from GM who are not from the CoM. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis Manchester is one of the major cities in England and has been so for several centuries. Plenty of scope for content. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I sampled a lot of the articles. They often identified the subject as born in Manchester. Before 1974, that description would not be used of what became the other boroughs of Greater Manchester. We have (I think) 11 articles, which is enough to have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 21 January 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:Chieftains of the Dúnedain[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) 02:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one non-redirect in this category (even the primary topic page is a redirect). Aragorn is already listed in Category:Middle-earth rulers, so I don't see much of a need to merge this anywhere. This category is too specific too be meaningful. Hog Farm (talk) 06:21, 14 January 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.

American television series by network[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American television series by network

Category:Sulfur forms[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 20:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match name of main article, in keeping with the parent cat (Category:Allotropes) and naming pattern of virtually all other items in that cat, and also matches commons:Category:Allotropes of sulfur (where ...forms was merged into allotropes-of...) DMacks (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Disulfur and trisulfur are not allotropes as they cannot not exist in the solid form in appreciable quantities. 'Plasmic Physics' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.96 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn 120.136.5.96 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 05:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although with only three pages the category is barely useful. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 20 January 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:MGM/UA Premiere Network[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#Category:MGM/UA Premiere Network

Category:Marvel Comics planets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#Category:Marvel Comics planets

Category:2000 AD locations[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, because the article was deleted at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Earth) leaving the category empty. MER-C 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I placed a PROD on it, but it should be upmerged if it remains. The category shouldn't because there aren't any location articles remaining in that category structure. TTN (talk) 00:04, 14 January 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_January_14&oldid=937157261"