Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:Anarchist parties[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Anarchist parties

Category:Female actor filmographies[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. bibliomaniac15 20:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since Category:Female actors redirects to Category:Actresses and since Category:Actress filmographies was created in 2013 over this newly created category, I propose merging this into the previously existing category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:03, 20 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:Sandpipers[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:Sandpipers. czar 01:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sandpiper and Scolopacidae appear to be the same topic. A merge in the other direction is also a possibility (in which case it would need to be placed under Category:Charadriiformes). However, my preference is to keep the category at the scientific name (e.g. that has a lot more interwiki links). DexDor (talk) 18:39, 20 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:Coxeter plane graphs[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. czar 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only templates but doesn't tell it in the title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:07, 20 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:People from St. Petersburg, Pennsylvania[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:People from Clarion County, Pennsylvania. czar 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 20 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:Bedlington United F.C. 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: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination on behalf of User:Struway2 after the speedy nomination was opposed. Details see copy of the CFDS discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Category:Bedlington United F.C. players to Category:Bedlington United A.F.C. players – C2D. Main article recently moved from F.C. to A.F.C. to correct suffix, per contemporary news report of the club folding, ref #2 in Bedlington United A.F.C.: Morpeth Herald, 3 June 1938, p3: "At to-morrow's meeting of the Northern Alliance League application will be made for membership by a new Bedlington Football Club to run in the place of Bedlington United A.F.C." Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose speedy Only recently moved and without discussion, so C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armbrust: I interpreted "(ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination)" as covering my unilateral move to correct the creator's standard assumption of F.C. as the club's suffix to A.F.C. per citation provided, which was as official as you'll get 80 years after the club folded. My mistake, then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Sorry, I didn't (and still don't) understand the process required. If it's possible for you to do that for me, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - speedy often means 'like an ordinary cfd but slower'. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 15:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - to match parent article name; the opposition to the CFDS was ridiculous and POINTy. GiantSnowman 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) support — the speedy proposal opposition seems nonsensical. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 23 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:Allahabad division[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. bibliomaniac15 20:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Uttar Pradesh government had officially changed the name to Prayagraj division in November 2018. Refer to the link Allahabad and Faizabad divisions now officially Prayagraj and Ayodhya Shyamsunder (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)*Pro name change to Prayagraj' Well, of course it had to be changed finally. Name change together with renaming the article of the entry Allahabad to Prayagraj - both articles should be renamed finally.[reply]

  • 1. it is the official name
  • 2. for 2 years now, so no, it is not too recent, like User:Kashmiri writes.
  • 3. it was renamed by the official government of India, which is recognized by everyone, not some interim government or dictator
  • 4. the idea to rename the city to Prayagraj was planned for a very long time, so it sure will be kept, like it is the case with Chennai and others.
  • 5. almost all of European Wikipedias renamed it to Prayagraj already, even Aserbaidschan, which is predominantly Muslim
  • 6. the inhabitants accepted the name change
  • 7. Some Wikipedias still dont rename the article because English Wikipedia has not done so yet, so it is important that you accept the renaming and dont disapoint the Wikipedianer who are pro a name change, which is the majority,because
  • 8. On the discussion of the article Allahabad there have been many attempts by many different writers, who wanted the renaming, more than against it (mostly User:Kashmiri writing singlehandedly) it matters a lot to them
  • 9. Last but not least: It is the original language exisiting far longer than the name right now, which was renamed to Allahabad under occupation
  • 10. Google and Britannica are using the new name Prayagraj already - the 2 most influential sources in this matter of all

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: What are you talking about? There is no RM discussion on the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something went wrong apparently, I'll give it another try. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: It is not simple. There are articles on Allahabad, Allahabad division, Allahabad district, Allahabad Airport, etc. They are all related, if you start by moving one, it will make it very confusing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle, and in the absence of evidence that COMMONNAME supports this move. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why in all the World should the name change not be in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME? --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now, it is plain that the Pro name change arguments are overwhelmingly stronger. Of course, the main article Prayagraj has to be renamed first--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose per Marcocapelle. If the article name is changed at an RM discussion, then the category can be speedily-renamed per WP:C2D.
But the category name should match the article name, so right now there are no grounds to rename the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 28 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:Faizabad division[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. bibliomaniac15 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The state government had changed the name in November 2018. Reference is here>Allahabad and Faizabad divisions now officially Prayagraj and Ayodhya Shyamsunder (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the category name should match the article name, so right now there are no grounds to rename the category. ----BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 28 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:Mario (franchise)[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. bibliomaniac15 04:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was recently moved via the Speedy page as "C2D: per head article Mario (franchise)".[2] It was later made clear at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_3#Category:Mario_(franchise) that the move was prompted by the issue of Eponymous categories which don't include their eponymous article. In the case of Mario, this was easily fixed by adding the article Mario to the head category, since it was always stated on the category page to be the main article. That edit [3] seems to have been accepted. Note: This nomination will enable the many sub-categories to remain at their short names rather than inserting "(franchise)" into their names, which would be unnecessary disambiguation in this case. Note that Mario has long been the WP:primary topic at Mario (disambiguation), and the speedy category move was not prompted by perceived ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regardless of whatever note was left in the category, the head topic of this is clearly Mario (franchise) and not the Mario character, as can be seen by the parent categories which are about franchises and not the character. If you move switch the primary between the character and the franchise, then this nomination can work. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gonnym. This a matter of whether character or franchise is the primary topic. If an RM reverses the current position, then the category can be renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 28 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.

Archaeological sites by culture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#Archaeological sites by culture

Category:Army of Darkness comics[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) 11:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The franchise is called Evil Dead, not all of these comics use the third movie specific title Army of Darkness. ★Trekker (talk) 09:53, 20 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:Evil Bong (franchise)[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 15:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a franchise, its just a series of three films. ★Trekker (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is not the title "Evil Bong"? Are there other items with the same title? Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Only films so not a full-fledged franchise per Wikipedia conventions. --Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 24 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:Fictional calendars[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category inherently cannot be expanded. I'm sure calendars exist in most fiction, but there aren't reliable third party sources to create a meaningful number of articles. In the rare instance where a calendar plays a significant role in a work of fiction, it can likely be covered as part of the WP:PLOT in context with the rest of the fiction's development and reception. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:01, 20 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:Hindi horror films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 29#Category:Hindi horror films

Category:The Chronicles of Riddick (franchise) video 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: merge. bibliomaniac15 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat ★Trekker (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to merge, and it has the same effect, it takes pretty much zero effort to add a parent category to these two pages.★Trekker (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it takes pretty much zero effort, but if you do not propose merging, the closing administrator will not actually do that. So you do not need to know how to merge, you just need to mention it in the proposal and the closing admin will take care of the implementation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know.★Trekker (talk) 07:01, 20 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:Grand prix des lectrices de Elle winners[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 17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Grand prix des lectrices de Elle is a book award by the readers of Elle fashion magazine and this category groups the authors of those books. The award is definitely notable as ongoing feature in the magazine "aimed at giving a voice to women who love to read", as the article puts it. The award doesn't seem defining to the biography articles though: they tend to mention the award in passing with other honors, although a few have it in the lede or don't mention it at all. This is one of many French literary award categories created in late 2016/early 2017. The winners are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 20 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:Waterstones Book 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. bibliomaniac15 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The "Waterstones Book of the Year" is a book award established in 2012 by Waterstones, a British chain of bookstores. This is partly an actual award with a judging panel that selects a winner from a shortlist, and partly a marketing device for promoting the sales of books (see here and here). The award doesn't seem particularly defining to the articles in this category: most mention the award in passing with other honors, although one mentions it in the lede and one not at all. The winners are already listified here in a section within the company article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 20 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_20&oldid=1073192608"