Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Crassuncus[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 02:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Nine articles and, barring taxonomic revisions, no potential for growth. Proposing merging this one back up into its parent category, which with ~115 articles is nowhere near the size where splitting off subcategories with less than a dozen articles is warranted. AddWittyNameHere 21:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 articles, all clearly belonging, is enough to merit a category if it is sufficiently defining. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this particular case merging does not harm, the articles will appear together in the parent category because all article names start with "Crassuncus". Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor. The parent category has three potentially larger subcategories--genera with more species. But even then, and even with the category in question merged back into its parent, the whole parent category will be on one page. I don't favor breaking taxonomic categories up into every possible sub-subcategory. I've created and populated many, many subcategories. But I do it only when the subcategory will be substantial, or it will make a SIGNIFICANT difference (that is to say, fewer pages) to a very large parent category. I've seen many categories with subcategories having two or three articles, so I'm glad to see that this sort of thing might actually be done. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge I think nine articles is enough for a genus-level category, provided that all other genera in the same tribe/family with more articles also have their own categories. But 123 articles in the tribe category wouldn't be enough to require diffusion to genus categories. If somebody wants to break Oidaematophorini down further into subcategories for genera, they certainly could do so. But nominator is currently the most likely editor to be inclined to make that effort with Lepidoptera categories. If AWNH wants to merge upward rather than diffuse downward, I'll support that. Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much my reasoning, yeah. Diffusing to genera is perfectly fine if done systematically, with all genera large enough to support a category getting diffused; it's also fine if most genera stay in the parent category and only the very large ones get diffused. However, piecemeal "random genera A and B get diffused, genera C, D, E and F which all have more species than A do not" diffusion is incredibly inconsistent, and given that the options to make things consistent are "upmerge a 9-article subcat" versus "create four additional subcategories for 10-30 articles each to further diffuse a category only barely into the triple digits", I'd consider upmerge more sensible than diffuse here. AddWittyNameHere 07:44, 6 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:American Civil War wargames[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 02:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've replaced it with Category:American Civil War board wargames. There are also Category:American Civil War games and Category:American Civil War video games, so the title was no good. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Delete the category. How about just Category:American Civil War board games If it a board game and it is about the American Civil War surely it is also a wargame. Its kind of over redundant if you get my drift. Boston1775 (talk) 12:19, 4 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:Grape pests and diseases[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 02:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just 2 subcats and 1 parent this "X and Y" category is an unnecessary layer of categorization. Note: The editor who moved it to this title and then created a category at the original title has been blocked. DexDor (talk) 17:16, 3 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:Kings of Rohan[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:Middle-earth Rohirrim, Category:Middle-earth rulers and Category:Fictional kings. MER-C 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is doubtful that this small category will grow in the future. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 3 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:Bulgarian land[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 02:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV irredentist category, similar to the nomination of Category:Slovene ethnic territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 3 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:Istro-Romanians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 11#Category:Istro-Romanians

Category:Anglo-Saxon literature[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. MER-C 03:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anglo-Saxon literature is a redirect to Old English literature because Anglo-Saxon and Old English are synonyms. I suggest the categories should follow suit. Antiquary (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, though all the current contents of Category:Anglo-Saxon literature do indeed belong in Category:Old English literature and should be moved. But the nom is wrong to say that "Anglo-Saxon and Old English are synonyms" - they are not! There is also Anglo-Latin literature, of which Bede is the most famous example, but far from the only one. Category:Anglo-Saxon literature should be repopulated with this (or a sub-cat set up). Johnbodvu (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons put forth by Johnbod. Krakkos (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The scopes of these categories are very much overlapping. Place Clichy (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really - one is defined by a language, and the other by a period, when more than one language was used. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Neutral. I thought that English was also stemming from Latin. I do not really see an obvious interest incarving out medieval Anglo-Saxon literature in several language-based identities. There would be obvious reasons why early medieval scholars would write in Latin, that does not create a different literature. But then the making of British identity is not my specialty. Place Clichy (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, regardless of the merge, Category:Anglo-Latin literature may be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It probably should be, perhaps not with that name. But that goes up to the Renaissance at least, and Category:Anglo-Saxon Latin literature or similar is needed. Category:Anglo-Saxon literature should then be an empty parent with 2 sub-cats. I note that the odd item in Category:Old English literature, like the Moore Bede, is actually in Latin, and some, like Leiden Glossary have significant amounts of original text in both languages. If this is not done, then Category:Anglo-Saxon literature is still needed for the OE sub-cat and to directly hold Bede etc. So this comment and the merge are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod offered a convincing argument to keep. So that also means that Anglo-Saxon should become the parent category of Old English instead of vice versa. And articles about texts written in Old English that are currently directly in the Anglo-Saxon category should be moved to the Old English subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per Johnbod, sounds like this category does have a valid place here. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 7 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:Giant stripping shovels[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:Stripping shovels. MER-C 02:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent article power shovel. What power shovels are "ultra-heavy" or "giant" seems subjective, and there is no need to have a separate category only for large ones. Huon (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The power shovel article says that power shovels are also called stripping shovels (we should probably have a redirect there), it distinguishes them from "generic excavators", and it seems to cover these very machines (compare "Notable examples" section). Andy Dingley, are you saying that these are not power shovels at all, are you saying that these are all of a specific sub-class and that categorizing them with other power shovels would lead to an overly full category, or what exactly is your objection? Huon (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, WP is not WP:RS!
Stripping shovels are a task, power shovels are an implementation. Because of the size needed, power shovels for stripping were distinctively larger than those for other tasks, such as railway or road construction. Also many stripping shovels weren't even shovels, but rather draglines (such as Big Muskie) - how to draw the boundary here could still be a question. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:01, 3 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:Video games with alternate endings[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 consensus. MER-C 03:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. This has been very common among certain genres of video game (e.g. fighting games and RPGs) since the mid-1990s and is about as common as the alternative if not moreso. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related articles: Alternate ending, Types of fiction with multiple endings, Nonlinear gameplay. Oornery (talk) 23:46, 7 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:Kharkiv River[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 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains the main article and a bridge. The Kharkiv River is a tributary of a tributary of a tributary of the Don River. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:01, 3 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:DiDi[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 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:01, 3 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.

Chapters of the book of Isaiah[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 as nominated. MER-C 03:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more sibling categories
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the large amount of these categories consists of the main articles about these chapters (which are already in Category:Book of Isaiah chapters) and redirects to the same chapter articles. The few other articles should be moved to Category:Book of Isaiah. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Small categories with no chance of expansion. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general but with a different outcome -- Commentary on Bible passages is a respectable topic; merely quoting them is non-encyclopedic. Most of the content on specific verses seems to be redirects, probably resulting from articles on them being merged back to the chapters. I am surprised at the lack of categories on some chapters that are much quoted by Christians, such as 53. The topic articles should be moved as suggested; but this will leave Category:Book of Isaiah cluttered up with a mass of useless redirects. I would suggest Category:Book of Isaiah verses as the merge target: I suppose there will be some useful administrative purpose in having all the verse redirects together where they will not clutter up a useful parent with articles that should be in Category:Book of Isaiah. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: clear consensus to merge, but I would like input regarding the alternative merge suggestion (to Category:Book of Isaiah verses instead) by Peterkingiron. MER-C 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not thrilled about Peterkingiron's alternative to create a new category just for redirects. If people are interested in the text of the book of Isaiah they already have the chapters category at hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not sure why editors are so keen on dismantling well-considered subcat schemes. And the redirects I have looked at such as Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 9:6 are useful. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call it well-considered when half of these subcats consist of only the main article. By the way there is nothing against the existence of the verse redirects. But you no longer need the redirects after you had already found the chapter article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 4 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_3&oldid=935193888"