Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8[edit]

Category:Categorized redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Category:Categorized redirects

Category:Sony Pictures 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: Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or rename. Or define better. Is Bewitched a franchise? Fuddle (talk) 22:41, 8 May 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 element redirects to lists[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) 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While this category is named "Fictional element redirects to lists" the actual template is named {{R from fictional element}} since 2014, when it was moved for consistency after the {{R from fictional character}} discussions here and here. Additionally, the template text itself mentions that it can be for non-list entries as well. This means that not all redirects tagged with this template are "to lists".
This naming would match the one used for fictional location and character redirects: Category:Fictional location redirects and Category:All fictional location redirects and Category:Fictional character redirects and Category:All fictional character redirects, both of which were recently renamed here, and here. If this passes, then followup speedy nominations can be done for the sub-categories. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, should be made consistent with related character and location categories.— TAnthonyTalk 18:31, 8 May 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:Films featuring hunters[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:Films about hunters. bibliomaniac15 18:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not a category format Wikipedia supports. It's too vague to be defining. "About" is the standard. ★Trekker (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more discussion about which wording would make this a better category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contrived category to connect Daffy Duck Hunt with the Predator films; they have nothing to do with one another other than in someone's opinion to be "about" or "featuring" hunters/hunting. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly the Predator subcategory does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article already explains its scope in the category description. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very good reason to not move something @Dimadick:.★Trekker (talk) 21:07, 16 May 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.

Organization of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[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 using the alternate targets proposed by Marcocapelle. bibliomaniac15 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories (minus the Ukraine one) seem to follow the same purpose. Much of the content is duplicated between several of these categories and/or mother Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union and/or child Category:Branches of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Proposed target name follows the pattern of parent Category:Organizational structure of political parties. Ukraine subcategory should follow the format chosen for the parent. Place Clichy (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, you put it actually exactly in the way I thought could be useful and I would support. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then I'll put it in bold below (while I'm still open to alternative names, and while I am not changing the Ukrainian nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per alt proposal. I think there may be a translation issue as "apparat" is not a common English word. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 9 May 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:Gender in computing[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with just one subcategory and two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 direct articles. This doesn't currently aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 9 May 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.

Russian-language television stations[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/merge Timrollpickering (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. This is follow-up on this nomination which is still open. These are empty categories except ultimately they contain Category:Russian-language television stations in Ukraine which can be moved up straight into Category:Russian-language mass media in Ukraine‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 8 May 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:Bangala-language mass media[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 14:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to merge 7 language mass media categories with only one or two members into their language categories in line with WP:SMALLCAT. The members are the multilingual website DMOZ or a non-English language Wikipedia. This follows a related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_1#Category:Asturian-language_websites. TSventon (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but purge the article DMOZ to begin with. It is not Kashubian-lingual but multilingual. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but purge the article DMOZ, which doesn't support the inclusion of any of these categories. Oculi (talk) 11:09, 8 May 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.

Earthquake magnitude tracking categories[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. with the adjustments proposed by Mikenorton bibliomaniac15 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...
  • Propose renaming Category:M z to Category:Articles using the vertical surface-wave magnitude scale
  • Even more meaningless category names (like Category:M ? renamed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 18#Category:M ?). The tree could use some organization by type as well, such as categorizing MS7 as a surface-wave magnitude scale. A couple of these are listed for merging into other ones that are synonymous, such as Ms and MS. I don't have enough time to tag all of them. Do they require "the"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Categories are for the benefit of general readers. We don't need them coded so that only experts know what they refer to. Grutness...wha? 04:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, support. I wonder if these maintenance categories are used for any maintenance at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename if Kept Category:M z is empty and Category:M wpd contains only Seismic magnitude scales. I know they are tagged as admin categories but, if articles are using scale, they should really be tagged indefinitely so I don't think these are being used. (The 2nd through 4th on this list are more plausible--invalid, missing and needing verification--but I want to hear an affirmative case for their use.) Certainly rename if kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Rename if Kept). Is there any workflow that uses these categories? (What-links-here doesn't show any) If not then best to delete just to avoid unnecessary complexity. DexDor (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that these should all be renamed, but I would like a bit of time to work out the most appropriate names for them. Their opacity is of course why some of the proposed renames are not appropriate. I'm someone who actually uses at least some of these categories - I have recently worked on checking some of them to make sure that magnitude scales used actually match the sources, which in quite a few cases they did not. It may be very niche, but they do have value if you're into the more technical aspects of earthquake articles. I would also like to propose a renaming of the category that was recently moved as the new name is not entirely accurate. Category:Articles using unknown earthquake magnitude scales should be Category:Articles needing specification of an EQ magnitude or magnitude scale, the current Category:M uk handles those where the magnitude type is unknown. Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write some notes about the workflow (with links to the categories, or at least the top one)? - e.g. in a wikiproject page. If there's a reasonable use for the categories I'll change my !vote. We've had cases in the past where categorization like this has been pointless (e.g. when the person who set it up found it didn't work and abandoned it). If it's something you expect other editors to do it should be documented; if it's only ever going to be you then perhaps it should be done offline. DexDor (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use unspecified instead of needing specification of? Similarly, unverified instead of needing verification of. A bit more concise, and also consistent with other Articles using ___. — MarkH21talk 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DexDor; I'm totally willing to reconsider if there is evidence editors are collaborating with these categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All these categories were created by User:J. Johnson to go with {{M}}, which he also created. Unfortunately JJ is currently on an involuntary wikibreak and cannot respond here himself (even if he felt like it). He has done most of the population of the categories by adding the particular M varieties to articles, whereas I have been doing follow up and checking work, if only in the last few months once I had realised what a useful tool it was. Many editors who work on pages that mention earthquake magnitudes find it difficult to navigate amongst the many magnitude types used in scientific literature, which is compounded with news sources often getting it completely wrong, i.e. referring to everything as "Richter". These categories provide a quick way to focus on earthquakes that use for instance MS , which is not the same as Ms , although they both do use surface waves. Is some cases the upper case "S" will simply be a typo while others are actually following the sources correctly. To answer some specific questions:
  • There is no hierarchy within the categories - they all belong within Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale.
  • There is no formal workflow (or nothing that I would dignify with that name) - just a case of picking a category and checking the usage against the sources in the article in question, the categories simply make the task more tractable.
  • I have added something to the "Open tasks" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes to encourage other editors to use the categories, particularly the "invalid, missing, unspecified, unverified and dubious Richter categories" - I'll wikilink them once this CfD is finished.
Finally I have come up with an alternative set of names and just the one merge - those using mN  with those using mbLg , as they are exactly the same. See one of my sandboxes for my proposal. I have used the suggestions by User:MarkH21 such as removing the "the" and in most cases the plural for "scale". I have also not gone for a full description, but rather used shortenings like Mw to keep them both concise and accurate e.g. MJMA  is only one of the magnitude scales used by the Japanese Meteorological Agency. Mikenorton (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just tweaked a few of my proposed changes in the sandbox. Mikenorton (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  1. I prefer the titles with the article ("the") as in the original proposal.
  2. Regarding Category:Articles with unspecified EQ magnitude or scale - is "EQ" a scale or is that short for earthquake? If it's for earthquake, then there is no reason to abbreviate it.
  3. Prefer the full name of the scale when it is named such as Category:Articles using the Japanese Meteorological Agency magnitude scale.
  4. Regarding Category:Articles using seismic moment M0 and Category:Articles using M0 with 0tex option, a sub-category should follow the parent name, so Category:Articles using seismic moment M0 with 0tex option
--Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original proposer wondered if "the" was necessary and I thought that it probably wasn't, but I'm happy either way.
  • I've changed "EQ" to "earthquake" as suggested.
  • As stated above the Japanese Meteorological Agency use more than one scale, only one of which is denoted MJMA , so my current proposal is more accurate I think.
  • Category:Articles using M0 with 0tex option renamed as suggested. Mikenorton (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal with any needed adjustments based on Mikenorton's data. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal

I'm moving my alternative proposal here as there have been no more comments for well over a week.

Alternative naming proposal

These suggestions differ only slightly from the ones from 11 days ago. Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 24 May 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:Joseph Levenson Book Prize recipients[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) 04:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Association for Asian Studies annually gives out the Joseph Levenson Book Prize to two scholarly English language books on China and this category groups the authors of those books. The AAS consistently gives out these awards to tenured professors at prominent colleges who publish through a university press and are already the recognized expert in their specialty and are already well categorized under Category:East Asian studies scholars.. This articles usually mention this award in passing, although a few mention it in the intro or not at all, so it doesn't seem defining. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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:Recipients of the Robert Schumann Prize of the City of Zwickau[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) 04:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The city of Zwickau, Germany is justifiably proud of native son Robert Schumann so they have the Robert Schumann Prize of the City of Zwickau prize to those who honor the composer's legacy. There are a few actual Schumann scholars here, like Bernhard R. Appel, who are defined by Schumann if not this award, but most of the articles don't even mention this award or Zwickau so it doesn't seem generally defining. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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_May_8&oldid=959427546"