Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 15

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

June 15[edit]

Category:Barefooters[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) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't see this as being a defining characteristic for people, particularly where inclusion in the category appears to have an element of arbitrariness to it – people added to the category include Steve Jobs, Amy Grant, and Shakira, but we have Commons images of all of them wearing shoes in public (Jobs in 2007, Jobs in 2010, Grant in 2008, Shakira in 2017, Shakira in 2018). BD2412 T 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barefooters Category, Keep Fictional Barefooters Category as it is more likely to be a major trait in a fictional setting. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Ridiculous idea for categories.★Trekker (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as trivial and non-defining. Category:Discalced Carmelites have been placed there although they wear sandals. Re: fictional category, I see that e.g. Esmeralda (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) was placed there although the article does not define her as a barefoot character, actually writing about the 1966 film adaptation: Lollobrigida was the first actress to portray Esmeralda barefoot, in contrast to Hugo's novel. This means that the category would be very inconsistently applied at the whim of individual editors, and this characteristic too trivial for categorization. Place Clichy (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but then there are cases, for fictional characters, where being barefooted is consistently part of the character eg.Rapunzel (Disney). (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I intended this category for people who not only like to go barefoot, but for whom the barefoot appearance is part of their public image, and is therefore notable and sourced by RS (i. e. singers and dancers who perform barefoot, iconic figures like Socrates and Johnny Appleseed whose depiction includes bare feet, etc.) Therefore I would suggest to keep it, but perhaps clean it up. --HPfan4 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has some highly problematic implications. If you are going by depictions, this will sweep in nearly all ancient philosophers, because depicting them barefoot is a later-developed custom, irrespective of any historical truth to the claim. With fictional characters, I would think that this would sweep in nearly all fictional animals (e.g., Pink Panther (character), Donald Duck, Yogi Bear, Charmander, Simba, Curious George, Crazy Frog, Gabby Gator), unless it were specifically exclusive of them. BD2412 T 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For Fictional Characters, we could add being a fictional human/human-like as a specification. (Oinkers42) (talk)
      • I think it's not a problem due to the requirement of RS. Say, you will find a lot of sources on Socrates' tendency to go barefoot - but none on an arbitrary ancient philosopher. Likewise, you can find plenty of RS for the fact that Rapunzel was depicted barefoot (just because it's an unusual trait for a human character), but not a single source for Pink Panther or Donald Duck (since for animals, it's a trivial thing). --HPfan4 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fictional, delete real/general. We already have numerous lifestyle categories and classifications for people and characters, and this is just as valid and prevalent as any other. The reason why I vote to delete real-life barefooters category is simply because there's way fewer of them than you would find in fiction. While it's common with regards to regular folks, most celebrities don't readily admit to it. --72.184.60.96 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 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:Amusement rides based on television franchises[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are describing the exact same thing. There is a ton of overlap between the two. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Oinkers42) (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 June 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:Alternate history websites & portals[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) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "& portals" is not standard. ★Trekker (talk) 16:33, 15 June 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.

1930s in Moldova[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: withdrawn, please see replacement nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_9#Early_C20_in_Moldova. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic existed from October 1924 to August 1940, when parts of it were combined with parts of Bessarabia into the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. There are not full category hierarchies for Autonomous SSRs, so merger to Moldova (option A) is probably more useful. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support option A, strong oppose option B: these are not the same area. The interwar Moldavian ASSR, most of which is currently in Ukraine, should not be confused with post-war Moldavian SSR which is the predecessor of present-day Moldova. Articles in the Moldova categories listed here all relate to Chisinau as far as I can see, which was at the time part of Romania (and clearly out of scope for a merger to a Moldavian ASSR category). The lone article in Moldavian ASSR categories (1 article for 4 categories!) is CS Tiligul-Tiras Tiraspol, a football club established in 1938 in Tiraspol, which is currently in Moldova. Note that there is no other Wikipedia article in any category named after this second-level subdivision of the Soviet Union, not even the main article. The best solution imho is to alt upmerge to national parents:
Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 15 June 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:Song recordings produced by the Glimmer Twins[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) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article is Jagger–Richards, while Glimmer Twins is only a redirect. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Support renaming. C2D can be a pain at times, but by sticking with it it does make it easier for everybody. There is no harm in putting 'credited as The Glimmer Twins' in the text of the cat, which is how I get round these situations. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 15 June 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:Centenarians by ethnicity[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) 02:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to discussions for Category:Supercentenarians by ethnicity below and Category:Supercentenarians by religion yesterday (@Buidhe and Marcocapelle: pinging contributors). There is little connection between being a centenarian (or supercentenarian) with being Jewish, or any ethnicity, or any religion. Trivial intersection per WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: actually, it seems that EuanB2000 created a number of ethnicity and religion container categories for the purpose of adding Jewish categories to them, before being blocked for tendentious editing against consensus. These may perhaps be deleted per WP:G5. Place Clichy (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:G5: "A page created before the ban or block was imposed [...] will not qualify under this criterion." Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. Should these not be upmerges? Eg Solomon Eliezer Alfandari is not in any other centenarian category. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment actually, he is in two other centenarian categories. I also have my doubts about whether being a centenarian is defining. I would nominate them for deletion but there are more than 100 categories involved and I don't know how to do it effectively: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Mass_nom_help. buidhe 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I assumed that all articles were already somewhere in Category:Centenarians by nationality which seems more defining. I checked them all and Alfandari was the only one not already in another centenarian category, which I fixed. Place Clichy (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first three, neutral on "Jewish supercentenarians" There is a recognized connection between Jewish ethnicity and longevity, which has attracted scientific research [2][3] buidhe 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Jewish centenarians and such articles don't exist and if they did, they could be nothing but lists; is something special about centenarians in the Jewish religion? If centenarians are defining characteristics, aren't nonagenarians, octogenarians, septuagenarians, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:OCEGRS, Jewish people may become old but not to extraordinary extent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and listify if liked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:01, 21 June 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:KROQ[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) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is KROQ-FM. It was sort of opposed at speedy. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support. If kept, this category should be named as the main article is, but I am still not convinced that individual radio stations have enough related content besides WP:PERFCAT. This category was, I believe, previously deleted in CfD and created again later despite a deletion review endorsing the deletion. (CFD discussion, DRV discussion) Place Clichy (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep Per WP:C2D to match main article. Whatever the category history, it's well populated and defining now. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Either way, I'm okay. --evrik (talk) 02:58, 17 June 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:Supercentenarians by ethnicity[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) 02:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only content is Category:Jewish supercentenarians. buidhe 01:40, 15 June 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 Pie (series)[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) 02:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard ★Trekker (talk) 00:43, 15 June 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.

The entire "Locus Award-winning works" tree[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD) and the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL
The Hugo Award is the recognized prize for Science Fiction and is one of the few awards defining enough for a category. Prior to each year's Hugo Award ceremony, Locus magazine has a reader's choice survey called the Locus Awards to predict/suggest who they think should win the Hugo Award. What works might win a Hugo Award doesn't come within a country mile of being defining. All these "winners" are already listified in individual list articles in Category:Locus Awards. (That category is proposed for renaming so that editors using WP:HOTCAT don't inadvertently add individual winners to a list category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus are all defining enough, but some work is needed here:
Rename the main category,
Keep the navboxes in that parent,
Delete the other categories (after checking they're already listified in their parent articles (I think they all are).
Grutness...wha? 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the Nebula being defining, although I think of it more of an award for fantasy writing. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per WP:OCAWARD. A derived award based on a survey prediction for a more important award is certainly not meant to be categorized. Moving the navboxes to the main (lists) awards category as User:Grutness suggested is fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT another NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 22 June 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:Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year‎[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) 02:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Gatorade sports drinks gives out the Gatorade Player of the Year awards to American high school athletes in 8 sports and we have categories for 2 of them. This award is definitely defining when the high school athletes receive them but Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles on athletes that peaked in high school. (Even the very inclusive WP:NSPORTS draws a hard line for the WP:NOTABILITY of high school players in the WP:NHSPHSATH section which requires "prolonged coverage" beyond a one-time award.) What we actually have in this category are college and pro athletes who, in their early life/high school section, makes a passing reference to this award. This is a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, they aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 15 June 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_June_15&oldid=966907812"