Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Years and decades in Rodrigues[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/delete as nominated except merge to Category:History of Rodrigues rather than Category:21st century in Rodrigues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. We don't have anywhere near enough coverage of Rodrigues (an island province of Mauritius) to support by-year categories or even by-decade categories. These 10 categories contain a total of only 3 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 11 October 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:Scientific institutions[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 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category name should have been "Scientific institutes" (as per parent cat "Institutes") but even so there's no significant distinction from "Scientific organizations", just a different naming practice. fgnievinski (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SHAREDNAME. The first article, Brassey Institute should be purged, as it is the name of a building rather than of an organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. Most of the content is institutes engaged in researching (perhaps also teaching about) a particular subject or subject area. I would not oppose renaming to Category:Scientific institutes. The nom's target is a broad category that is coming close to being a container only one, into which articles on particular institutes/ions will not fit well. Items purged, such as the Chernobyl item (a coalition of UN organisations should be purged inot an appropriate sibling of the nom's target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the target is a sort of container category, but that simply means that after the merge the articles should be moved deeper down in the tree of Category:Scientific organizations if they aren't already there. The closer of the discussion may list the category on WP:CFDWM for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Any distinction is too subtle to be viable in categoisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The only distinction I see is that an institute is often a building, but the articles are not about the buildings. Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and purge buildings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 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:Sherlock Holmes in television[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 6#Category:Sherlock Holmes in television

Category:Geological surveying[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 6#Category:Geological surveying

Category:Dairy industry in India[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:Dairy farming in India. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Dairy farming in India (which I've separately proposed be renamed to Category:Dairy in India per WP:C2D). 5 of the 7 articles in this cat are dairy product brands, for which Category:Dairy products companies of India already exists. – SD0001 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 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:Moldovan telecommunication navigational boxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Moldovan telecommunication navigational boxes

Category:Albums produced by Michael Lloyd[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 18:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is Michael Lloyd (music producer) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 11 October 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.

Society of Cinematographers[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) 17:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming: Category:American Society of Cinematographers members
  • Propose renaming: Category:Members of the British Society of Cinematographers
  • For cinematographers, "ASC" and "BSC" labels are commonly seen. The related categories have different names, and it seems like they should match. I do not have a strong preference for doing either "X Society of Cinematographers members" or "Members of the Y Society of Cinematographers". Would like to find consensus for either format. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - these are the conventional forms in UK/US categories. Eg Category:Harvard University alumni, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Oculi (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oculi, can you elaborate? I'm not sure if I know this convention. Your example isn't clear to me because the university names are different, where the organizations' names are not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having said this I find Category:Members of learned societies which uses 'Members of' apart from 2 or 3 exceptions, so (as a UK person) I would happily back 'Members of' for the American Society of Cinematographers, whether learned or not. Oculi (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does membership convey something like an award? Can one be a respected cinematographer without membership? If the answers are yes, these are probably WP:OCAWARD and ought be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Delete (possibly after listifying). We do not normally categorise people by membership of a professional body. If Cinematographers constitutes a profession, we might categorise as American Cinematographers and British Cinematographers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "ASC" and "BSC" labels are often found to be attached to qualifying members, like "Sir" would be attached to Knights Bachelors. Membership is not readily granted, as this details for the ASC. This says, "Membership is by invitation only and given to cinematographers who have proven themselves to be among the very best in the world." It is a defining characteristic, especially within the profession. This discussion is intended for renaming only. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Carlossuarez46, per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not normally allow categorisation by membership of a professional body. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 18 October 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:Catherine of Alexandria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. The main category is also overcategorized, so it seems like very few of the articles in it or the subcat need to be categorized into any of those parent categories. The subcat is already part of an established scheme, so removing this won't impact it re: navigation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only do some of the sub cats hold other articles, but this corresponds with the structure of the images that are on file at the Commons. --evrik (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete including subcategory (which I have tagged as well), all of it is a matter of shared name, not shared content. Nothing except the main article and the painting is about the person Catherine of Alexandria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The last comment is not correct. All the articles have some link with her, not just shared name. 4 articles is on the small side, but there is no obvious merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually saw this category at the bottom of an article and went to nominate it before I realized it was already here. This is standard WP:SHAREDNAME where that guideline gives Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan as an example. I suppose these churches might have a stained glass window of Catherine of Alexandria or something, but the articles don't mention it because it's not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion, and compared with other Wikipedia categories it seems populated enough to be kept. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 1 November 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:Husbands of Roman Emperors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 3 articles, no possibility to have more Roman Emperors with husbands. Should be upmerged to both parents. (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, there could be more articles easily made because Roman emperors marrie men more than just three times. For example on of Elagabalus's husbands do not have an article as of now.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how merging husbands to spouses would be an improvement. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "It might grow if someone created more articles" is not an argument for retention. Three articles falls within the smallcat threshold and so it should go. Furthermore, I see no evidence in the sources for "Husbands of Roman Emperors". For example, the article on Hierocles (charioteer) states that he "was reputedly a favorite and lover of the Roman emperor Elagabalus", not that he was his husband. If kept, it should be renamed to "Reputed husbands of Roman emperors" or "Reputed male lovers of Roman emperors" (lowercase emperor) per the sources. In the case of Nero, in one of his marriages to a male, Nero played the role of bride; in the other example, Nero played the role of husband. So that would reduce the contents to just 2 articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:06, 11 October 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.

Suburbs of the Central Coast smallcats[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: manually merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
3-page categories
  1. Category:Green Point, New South Wales
  2. Category:Ourimbah, New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of Category:Suburbs of the Central Coast (New South Wales), Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of the Central Coast (New South Wales) (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of the Central Coast (New South Wales) (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:02, 11 October 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.

Suburbs of Lake Macquarie smallcats[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: manually merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 12:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Morisset, New South Wales
  2. Category:Pinny Beach, New South Wales
  3. Category:Rathmines, New South Wales
3-page categories
  1. Category:Catherine Hill Bay, New South Wales
  2. Category:Wangi Wangi, New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Lake Macquarie, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Lake Macquarie (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Lake Macquarie (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:02, 11 October 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.

Suburbs of Newcastle, New South Wales smallcats[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: manually merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Carrington, New South Wales
  2. Category:Cooks Hill, New South Wales
  3. Category:Hamilton, New South Wales
  4. Category:Newcastle East, New South Wales
  5. Category:Wallsend, New South Wales
3-page categories
  1. Category:Newcastle West, New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 6 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Newcastle, New South Wales (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Newcastle, New South Wales (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 13:02, 11 October 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:Chlorimides[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; the discussion was complicated by changes to the category that took place during discussion. This close is without prejudice to a re-nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2,6-Dibromoquinonechlorimide is the only Wikipedia article about a compound containing the diradical =NCl. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, "Nitrogen halides" isn't even the correct parent...should be up one higher, at Category:Nitrogen–halogen compounds. That's also sparse, so I support merging the nominated one into it. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well how about we keep it, as categories always have to start with one entry. And now there are two. Nitrogen–halogen compounds is much too general to be an upmerge candidate. Perhaps we also need to create Category:nitrogen-chlorine compounds as an intermediate level of categorization. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a third entry now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that subcats per halogen is reasonable to consider. Here is the high-level layout from commons:
  • Nitrogen-halogen compounds
    • Nitrogen-fluorine compounds
    • Nitrogen-chlorine compounds
    • Nitrogen-bromine compounds‎
    • Iodine-nitrogen compounds‎
    • Nitrogen halides‎
    • Nitrogen oxohalides‎
and some more-specific subcats. The "Nitrogen halides" are simply that (NaXb with no other elements) whereas the "Nitrogen-... compounds" can also have other elements (so each specific "Nitrogen halides" is also in the appropriate "Nitrogen-... compounds"). By contrast, our (enwiki) Category:Nitrogen halides include other elements as well. Having the same meanings as on commons would make it easier to cross-link. Should we clone that high0-level layout and conceptual meanings here as a start? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: This CFD has now expanded to cover a larger set of cats than just the nominated one. Do you have any comments on those, or should User:Graeme Bartlett work on the wider reorganization independently of the limited CFD-pending outcome of Chlorimides? DMacks (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent changes to the cat, I'm not even sure what the actual topic (as opposed to linguistics) is. Previously it was "=NCl" which would only include C=NCl (imine derivatives) and likewise that N as a double-bonded ligand to other atoms. But then the creator expanded it to also include diacyl nitrogens (imide derivatives). I objected editorially to changing the meaning of the cat while we're discussing it. It seems like this is merging different chemicals or a somewhat ambiguous meaning of the term "chloramide". Even chloramine has "chloramide" as a cited synonym. I do agree that unifying these things in a single cat is reasonable, since the N–Cl aspect is a key topic. But that means it would be equivalent to "Nitrogen-chlorine compounds", which has already been proposed as an upmerge-like solution? DMacks (talk) 13:07, 14 October 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Supreme Court not being a legislative body, its decisions are generally not referred to as "votes". BD2412 T 03:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apart from the nom's point, the topics of the categorized articles are decisions; they are not the individual votes each justice makes in support of such decisions. Sanity check: are there any things other than actual decisions that could be so categorized? I don't think so, but maybe someone with more imagination than I can think of one. TJRC (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat. Wouldn't it be more consistent with common use to name the category "opinions" rather than "decisions?" The only problem with that that I can think of is that not every decision of the Supreme Court comes with an opinion, but decisions without opinions seem like they may be outside the intended scope of this category or even not notable, anyway? lethargilistic (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with "opinions" as well. Either would be an improvement over "votes". BD2412 T 17:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following Postdlf's comment, I feel a bit more divided, although I still lean support. WP:DEFINING poses an issue because, per their comment, unanimity could indicate an opinion of relatively small importance just as easily as one of huge importance. Nonetheless, unanimity is consistently referred to in scholarship as a signal of the opinion's strength in terms of precedent. (If I'm cynical, almost solely to bolster the argument they wanted to make based on the case in the first place, but it's a thing.) Another thing that could be relevant is the utility of the category. Being able to cross-filter by topic and unanimity would be helpful, albeit in an abstract way. lethargilistic (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thought I had to keep was for searching or similar research, and I agree that is a valid purpose. However, I just noticed that including "joined by unanimous" in the search handles it. So I'm not sure we need a cat to accomplish this goal. Looking at {{Infobox court case}}, there are actually a whole bunch of fields for listing various concur and dissent, so we do even have flexibility from that single entry-point for finding (for example) all that had unanimous decision but not unanimous opinion (concurrence with no dissent) and such. DMacks (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I question whether this is a valid thing to categorize at all, per WP:DEFINING. In these days of such an ideologically divided court, it seems the only unanimous decisions are those of least impact and controversy, which was not always the case, so I don't see the value of categorizing together what is just coincidence and arguably trivia for most entries, particularly when it would include cases from very different periods of the Court's history. Following up on Lethargilistic's comment, every order of the Court is a decision, and they are correct in saying that nearly all of the cases we have articles on are those that have full opinions handed down. But even within that, there may be decisions that are unanimous (all justices agreed that the lower decision should be reversed, for example), but no unanimous opinion (some justices concurred in the judgment but did not join the majority's reasoning). So we really can get into hairsplitting with this. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Unanimous opinions of the United States Supreme Court to hopefully limit it in that way. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: I would agree with renaming to Category:Unanimous opinions of the United States Supreme Court and limiting the category to cases where a single opinion was issued and was joined by all justices without dissent or concurrence. BD2412 T 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There have also been cases with unanimous majority opinions yet separate concurring opinions by justices ("I join the Court's opinion in full but write separately to..." blah blah blah). postdlf (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. It appears a plurality of decisions (at least over the past few decades) have been unanimous.[1] There appears to be some research on the unanimity (or lack thereof) in SCOTUS decisions[2] but even if we were to have an article on that topic I don't think it's a defining characteristic of the individual decisions. I see WP:SCOTUS was already pinged. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count 13 unanimous opinions last term, or 20% of the cases for which they handed down full opinions. Many years will have an even higher percentage, especially if editors think "unanimous as to the justices participating" (i.e., ignoring recusals) should be included. I just can't see the value in categorizing those together. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable thing for the cases. Aren't most cases unanimous? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No; a 2018 check indicated that over the 2000-2018 timeframe, unanimous holdings account for only 36% of Supreme Court decisions.[1] TJRC (talk) 21:35, October 17, 2020‎ (UTC)
  • 36% is a huge proportion of the Court’s opinions to be dumping together. I think that shows very clearly that this category isn’t targeting anything special or unusual, as that cited source emphasizes. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary; the importance of unanimity at the Supreme Court has been the subject of scholarly publications:
TJRC (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turberville, Sarah; Marcum, Anthony (June 28, 2018). "Perspective | Those 5-to-4 decisions on the Supreme Court? 9 to 0 is far more common". Washington Post.
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:Roller coasters by type[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; the target became Category:Types of roller coaster via the discussion immediately below this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, duplicate categories. Gjs238 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes there are good reasons to do so, but I do not see any particular advantages to do that in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction between the two categories would escape many editors. The articles in Category:Types of roller coasters will serve perfectly happily as eponymous articles for the subcategories ]]Rathfelder (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the articles in Category:Types of roller coasters are largely eponymous articles for the subcats in Category:Roller coasters by type, then what is the purpose of Category:Types of roller coasters? Gjs238 (talk)
      • To hold those articles - in the same way that most "Types of" categories are used. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 15 October 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:Types of roller coasters[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 Category:Types of roller coasters to Category:Types of roller coaster; no consensus to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, duplicate categories. Gjs238 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, which of the two are you proposing? Or are you indifferent between merge and reverse merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know which is the correct Wiki format/grammer, so merge one into the other, or create a 3rd with the correct format. Kind of like, "I walked to the park this morning," vs "This morning I walked to the park." Gjs238 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "by type" is clearly a container category, we should not merge articles into it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but rename to Category:Types of roller coaster. The plural is unnecessary and counter to usual practice, surely. Grutness...wha? 04:26, 12 October 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_October_11&oldid=987277710"