Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9[edit]

Category:Shakespearean scholars[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations). Grutness...wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 11 March 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:Wikipedia community templates[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. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lacking a definition of "community" templates as opposed to other templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 10 March 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:Sportspeople from Oroville, California[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. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found 6 more articles which have been added to the category, so keep. However, the parent category, Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation, has only one sub-category and should be deleted.--TM 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 17:58, 9 March 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.

Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia[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: discussion merged into Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28#Category:Victorian-era_naval_ships_by_country (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "the discussion below" is (I think) this. DexDor (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: are you okay with merging this discussion into the main discussion? I no longer expect that anyone will use the Commonwealth argument to treat these two countries differently. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 10 March 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 with coronavirus disease 2019[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) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe that simply having the virus is WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's this category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 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:Korean-American movement activists[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) 01:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither Korean-American movement nor Asian-American movement is a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unless the scope of the category is more precisely defined (with a rename) and it is populated with at least 3 more articles (making 5). I suspect the scope is intended to be Category:Korean activists in America, but that may not quite define it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 15 March 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:Social security ministries[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect, due to low participation. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time. Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - isn't the former a subcat of the latter? Our article Social affairs is not impressive but https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/social-affairs the EU states "Social affairs covers decent jobs, social security, protection and inclusion, poverty reduction, gender equality, people with disabilities, the needs of children and families, young people, older people and minorities such as Roma, access to health, justice, education, culture and sport, volunteering and active citizenship". Oculi (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there are currently (apart from an overview article) articles with social security ministries of only three countries (China, Jamaica and Zambia). Insofar social affairs ministries should be split, Category:Labour ministries makes a better subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont much mind which way it goes. And if I ever get my act together I might try to populate Social security ministries, but at the moment the social affairs category has a wider scope. Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 14 March 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:Foremost disciples[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:Foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New name is more clear to the average reader who is not expert. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:39, 9 March 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Smyrna, Georgia[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Mr. Guye) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge sounds reasonable enough. Follows convention, too. Thanks for the ping.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:50, 10 March 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:Actor-model stubs[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) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub categories for a non-defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - yeah... there's no permanent Category:Actor-models either. Ideally I'd like to see the templates go as well, to be replaced by the standard actor-stub or model-stub, or national subtypes of either/both. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We certainly shouldn't have a stubcat without a corresponding permcat. Stubcats have got out of control - it would be better (e.g. to discourage busywork) to roll them all up into just one category for stubs; editors would still be able to find stubs on a particular topic by using category intersection or by using wikiproject (talk page) categorization. DexDor (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Also, trying to use category intersection to find a stub only works if there are categories assigned to an article - let alone inaccurate categories. Just saying.) Her Pegship (I'm listening) 15:57, 15 March 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_March_9&oldid=1073192660"