Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5[edit]

Category:Articles with WikiMiniAtlas displaying incorrectly: not displayed on top of page[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 in the absence of any objections to the stated rationale, and in light of the empty state of the cat. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a bug, but a feature of {{coord}}. This category is used on pages where WikiMiniAtlas is displayed inline, but not in the title. In the cases I have checked, this was done on purpose by specifying |display=inline or by not specifying |display= at all. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:11, 5 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:Teaching hospitals in Zambia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT. I do not consider it part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, since the scheme contains a massive amount of categoties with only 1-3 articles.
@Namiba: please add the second merge target in the proposal instead of in the rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this. Inherently there are not a lot of teaching hospitals (though there may be disputes about which ones count) , and I cant see much point in loads of categories with only one article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- merger to Teaching hospitals is inappropriate. The intervening Category:Teaching hospitals by country is a container. I think this is a small category exception, since it is part of a scheme. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
38 of the 65 categories in Category:Teaching hospitals by country have fewer than 5 articles. There should probably be a group nomination for those after this concludes.--User:Namiba 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is perfectly standard to categorise by country. Oculi (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Looking at other countries with a small number of hospitals, no other country has a separate category for just one teaching hospital. There is only one Zambian hospital in Wikipedia. -- Talk to G Moore 21:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals[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:Alydar offspring[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 03:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. There is no other 'offspring' category for American horses. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Jlvsclrk (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for categories for the offspring of single sires. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We’ve got thousands of articles on individual stallions, definitely do not need cats for all their progeny. Montanabw(talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with all the above. Stretchrunner (talk) 13:49, 10 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.

Nazi Party members[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, without prejudice to a nomination of any of the individual categories for deletion/merging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a consistent format. For now, I have taken the format of the nobility category as the default (except I changed "in" to "of" for politicians) but I am open to any other format as long as it is consistently applied. However, explicit usage of "Nazi Party" is recommendable to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Merging is a good idea too except for politicians and maybe also except for architects, since Nazi architecture is really a thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom: clearer name and structure. Place Clichy (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these categories are defining, and should be kept - though I cant see why we need to divide actors by gender - and Nazi Party makes it clearer that we are not including any sort of Nazi revivalists. Rathfelder (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as nom -- this is a perfectly reasonable category scheme. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and oppose merge as per Rathfelder's comments. Many of these characteristics are defining (eg actors / actresses, architects, physicians and policitians). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very many articles about NSDAP members which are not included in any of these categories. Do we want them to be more comprehensive? Should they be subdivided? Do we include everyone who was a member, given that membership for many people was unavoidable, or that some people were infiltrators? NB I dont think Neo-nazis and the like should be included in any of these. They are a very different proposition. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 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:Demographics of the Western Balkans[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) 15:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These new creations only gather Demographics of Foo articles for what the creator estimates are (Western) Balkan countries. These country articles are otherwise correctly categorized, and are even also found in Category:Demographics of Yugoslavia. I'm not sure that it is necesary to break down Demographics of... articles in regional categories, and even then if (Western) Balkans are the right region to consider. Place Clichy (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that an article with identical scope was deleted in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demographics of the Western Balkans. Place Clichy (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to delete per discussion below. Rationale remains unchanged. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 12 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:Unanimous votes of the United States Supreme Court[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. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I question whether unanimity is a defining characteristic (WP:NONDEF). In a random sample, only about half of the articles mentioned the unanimity of the decision in the lead. If kept, the category should be called "Unanimous decisions of the United States Supreme Court". Sandstein 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that the lead of every SCOTUS case article ought to include the vote. I based the name largely off of Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court and I felt that the category warranted creation since there is already a similar category, Category:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions. Brad (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per curiam decision is a legal term though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to the Washington Post (source) unanimous votes are the most common outcome and represent 36% of all cases. (The controversial 5-4 ones get more coverage though.) If I had to pick one court vote that was defining, I'd say 5-4 since there is a controversy but I don't think this approach is defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or upmerge if necessary, possibly listify) as this is not a good way to categorize court cases. It would be much better to subcat Category:United States Supreme Court cases (which currently contains over 3000 articles) by century or by topic (e.g. employment, health, transport ...). DexDor (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Category:Unanimous decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The vote of the Justices can be significant in assessing the weight of precedent given to a decision. (Example: Brown v. Topeka). FYI per curiam is a slightly different concept and could be its own category, though I don’t think many such decisions are on cases notable enough for a WP article. Montanabw(talk) 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The vote of the Justices can be significant in assessing the weight of precedent given to a decision." is a good reason for the text of the article covering it. Categorizing (grouping articles about similar topics) is not quite the same thing. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 9 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:Super Smash Bros. guest characters[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. The main argument to be given weight here is that being a guest character is not a defining characteristic for subjects of the articles. This may be a topic to talk about in articlespace. bibliomaniac15 17:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters. The scope is also lacking, as what even makes a "guest" character anyway? Third-party? DLC? All of the playable characters in the franchise originated elsewhere, so they are all guest characters by the standard definition. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category is meant to be the third party characters of the Super Smash Bros. series. It was also created to abide by the rules of category Category:Video game guest characters, which is a container category. Keep. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s the case, at the very least, we need a re-name. What you are saying is not readily apparent, as categories should be. Not intuitive at all. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a existing category because some of these characters are not own by Nintendo and are in partnership with companies such as Sega, Capcom and Rare. This falls under the guidelines of WP:SUBCAT, And I quote "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second". There's also a lot of characters in Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters and we want it to be easy to WP:DIFFUSE as it is a rather massive category that is likely to grow with new released games. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SomeBodyAnyBody05, but why do we need a category of only third-party characters? Your argument of it being "likely to grow with new released games" is just WP:CRYSTALBALLing. If that does happen, then we would simply react when/if that time comes. At the very least the category should be renamed to clearly state its scope, because "guest character" is too ambiguous per what I said in the OP. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dissident93, I understand your opinion but why not have the category set in place before that time comes, We already have a stable amount in the category at 14 and with constant online updates and it's third party involvement it's not like it's not going to grow at all. If we delete this then it would be feasible to delete it's parent category as well. I do agree with changing the name of the category. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dissident93, The entirety of Category:Video game guest characters should be deleted/renamed by that same logic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He already told you why - WP:CRYSTAL. Also, category creation is very fast and easy, there’s no reason we need it on standby like you’re suggesting. I agree that the patent category should be deleted as well, on the same grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the parent category being nominated too for the same reasoning, but I'm waiting for resolution on this before I do that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:34, 10 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:The Pinball Arcade‎[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) 12:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT for both and WP:OVERLAPCAT for Stern)
The Pinball Arcade is a video game that simulates a mix of real-world/physical pinball machines while Stern Pinball Arcade only shows simulations of pinball machines manufactured by Stern (game company). We usually think of WP:PERFCAT as being with people but that exactly describes these non-defining categories. (For the Stern game, there's also an overlap issue with Category:Stern pinball machines.) The contents of each category is already listified in each main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted nearly identical categories for pinball machines portrayal by video game here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 5 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 Order of Water Rats members[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) 12:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:PERFCAT)
The Grand Order of Water Rats is a charity organization of actors and performers that put on shows to raise money for their good works. A reader of the articles about Charlie Chaplin, Engelbert Humperdinck, Prince Philip and Bob Hope just has to wonder what this weird sounding category is doing at the bottom of the page since the text never even mentions it. The category contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 5 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_5&oldid=967186018"