Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22[edit]

Category:Defunct broadcast television stations in the United States[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 19:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's already a category "Defunct television stations in the United States" Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because MMessine19 completely ignored a prior CfD and consensus. This category does not need cluttering redirects. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category with this name was suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 26, but there was no support. MMessine19 created it anyway, stating "Here’s ALL of the defunct stations", apparently meaning to categorise redirects as well as articles; she then added the redirect W50DR. However, the consensus at the above discussion was to remove all redirects from a similar category, and only to categorise full articles. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 23 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:Recipients of awards from the United States National Academy of Sciences[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 or selectively merge as revised. MER-C 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and, likely, WP:OCAWARD)
This category seems perfectly reasonable until you actually click on it to see the contents. Other than one subcategory, it has 343 loose biography articles that received any of the 32+ awards issued by the NAS. Some of those awards might be defining and some not, but you have no hope of clicking to them through this mishmash so it serves no navigational purpose. The contents of the category are already lisitifed here in separate list articles by award for any reader interested in the topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I do not see anything in Category:Winners of the Comstock Prize in Physics suitable for upmerging...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! Thanks for the catch. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored the nomination for clarity. I also confirm that all the members of the sub-cat are listed in the page Comstock Prize in Physics. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted because the sub-category was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revised nom. Comstock fails WP:OCAWARD. Lists do a much better job as they can summarise the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 25 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:Saints recognized by the Roman Catholic Church[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) 02:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: totally redundant to Category:Roman Catholic saints, beginning to confuse the hierarchy of cats Elizium23 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Elizium himself has stated, "Saints prior to 1054 are not recognized as being Catholic saints", this category encompasses saints within this category, as well as saints who, though not Roman Catholic, are still recognized by the Catholic church. So which will it be, Elizium? Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Benkenobi18, you want to create a category designed to be clogged with thousands and thousands of articles? Who is going to add them all and maintain it? What is the purpose? Everyone knows that the other ancient cats consist of saints recognized by the Catholic Church. We diffuse cats for good reasons here. Don't muddy the waters with this POV stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 22 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:Star Wars: The Clone Wars 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. MER-C 19:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. ★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 22 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:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith 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. MER-C 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT, and only like one of these is specific to the third film. ★Trekker (talk) 10:44, 22 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:Star Wars: The Last Jedi[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: manual deletion. MER-C 19:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 10:41, 22 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:Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker[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: manual deletion. MER-C 19:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 10:41, 22 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:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones[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. For the record, it currently has five articles plus a sub-cat.– Fayenatic London 12:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zero need for this. Its redundant. ★Trekker (talk) 10:40, 22 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:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones 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: no consensus. For the record, it currently has six members. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only like three of these video games are specific to the second film. ★Trekker (talk) 10:39, 22 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:Star Wars: The Force Awakens 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. MER-C 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Smallcat ★Trekker (talk) 10:38, 22 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:Star Wars: The Force Awakens[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. For the record, it currently has four members. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Smallcat, no reason to have a separate category for just one film in this case. ★Trekker (talk) 10:37, 22 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:Ancient Roman Catholic saints[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 19:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zero-population and impossible category. According to Wikipedia's criteria, we do not term anything "Roman Catholic" until AD 1054. Ancient saints are Christian saints only. Therefore this is an anachronism, and no articles can be placed in this cat. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The articles are already in an x-th century Christian saints category, so merging is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Elizum has emptied the category without discussion. Category represents saints that are currently recognized by the Catholic church, so that we have a category within the "Catholic Saints" category. This includes saints like Pope Damasus I, etc. It's rather silly that Catholic bishops like Ambrose are not Catholic. All saints that are recognized by the Catholic church are Catholic saints. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambrose is just as well a saint of the Anglican Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, in short he is a Christian saint. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Catholic Church before the 11th century. Most saints predating that date are shared by other churches. Avoid overcategorization. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently all these articles are in the category "Catholic Saints". So they are in fact, Catholic saints.Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them (not all) are in a Catholic saints by nationality category. That is wrong also because current nationalities did not exist in the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There are two separate noms about Catholic saints on this page. I can see the possibility that a saint alive before 1054 was only recognised as a saint after that date. Subject to that pre-1054 saints should probably all be merged into Category:Christian saints before 1054, leaving later ones to be Catholic or Orthodox. However, the situation may in fact be more complicated, due to (1) saints who are only venerated locally, e.g. in Wales or Cornwall (2) Coptic and some eastern denominations which split from the Orthodox centuries earlier. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on reflection, the "by century" categories are probably sufficient for the Ancient Roman saints. Few 4th century saints would not be Roman citizens. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorising saints by which Christian church recognises them, rather than which church they belonged to in their own time, could easily lead to a gross swelling of categories in articles, since many saints are recognised by several churches, as well as unnecessarily complicated and obscure disputes in some cases. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment starting with the Chalcedonian schism there may be value in categorizing separately Catholic saints from schismatics. Place Clichy (talk) 19:05, 26 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:National Register of Historic Places in Coos County, New Hampshire[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: Comedy of errors: withdrawn for procedural relist jp×g 23:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The second "o" in "Coös" has an umlaut (see the county's webpage). I recategorized all the pages in the category, so now it is a goofy lil' nothing. jp×g 05:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move A lot of articles were recategorised from ...Coos... to ...Coös... All of the matching old category pages should be moved to the new name. (Some have talk pages with content that should be moved over.) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (see above) jp×g 05:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Both JPxG and Epicgenius have recategorised a lot of articles out of process. I have reverted all those recategorisations.
This nomination lists only a small subset of the subcats of Category:Coos County, New Hampshire. They should be named consistently, so I oppose any nomination which doess not include Category:Coos County, New Hampshire plus all of its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently putting all of the other subcategories for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. In my opinion, this CFD should be closed and all of the above proposals moved to CFDS. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: when I suggested on your talk that you use CFD or CFDS, I was not aware of this proposal by JPxG to ratify a WP:FAITACCOMPLI which they had already created. So we now have almighty mess of some out-of-process moves of category pages awaiting complete reversion, some pages listed at this CFD without proper tagging, and some listed at CFDS.
I have tools which make it fairly easy for me to make a complete nomination of the whole set. If both this nomination and the speedy noms are withdrawn, I will make a procedural nomination of the whole set ... i.e. a nomination without support or oppose, so that a consensus can be formed to make a consistent decision about the whole set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: TBH I only moved the pages because I saw that JPxG had attempted to move these categories first. I will withdraw the CFDS nominations, but I will have to revert the tags I placed, too. epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@epicgenius, I am sure you acted in good faith. But mass out-of-process category moves create a lot of tangles, so in such cases it's always better to revert the out-of-process moves and use CFD or CFDS. Using the CFD procedures has four advantages:
  1. It helps to ensure that category titles remain consistent.
  2. It ensures that the moves are done accurately, because the CFD bots have a much higher accuracy rate than any human
  3. It creates a proper audit log, because the bot links to the relevant discussion
  4. Most importantly, it ensures that mass changes are made only with consensus. Even if the change appears uncontroversial, listing it at CFD or CFDS gives editirs the opportunity to object if they see an issue which may have been overlooked.
Thanks for reverting the speedies. We'll sort this . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: No problem. Thanks for assuming good faith as well. I was a bit surprised that I had to go through the CFDS process for such moves - I didn't know this was required for category moves. I will keep this in mind next time. epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Wow, this sure is a disaster. Sorry to everyone for creating it. I guess that's the last time I make edits based off what someone said they reckoned was how you were supposed to do it. And apologies to @BrownHairedGirl:, if I were awake, I'd have reverted them myself instead of making you go through and do eight bazillion rollbacks. Here is the full list of all categories pertaining to Coös County (which I moved all the pages from to their new ö'd locations last night, which have since partially been reverted, possibly on the notion that I hadn't completely moved them all, but some have not, and some of the categories have been moved, and others redirected, but also others not). I'll withdraw the nomination and allow these to be re-listed. jp×g 23:22, 22 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:Minerals of Afghanistan[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 19:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, a rock which is also found in other countries. This is the reason why we don't classify minerals by the country they're found in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't specifically about Afghanistan and we don't normally categorize minerals by country. Categorization should be based on the topic (LL) not based on how much of the article is (currently) about a sub-topic (LLinA). DexDor (talk) 07:00, 23 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:Company articles with out of date infobox information[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 06:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused. MB 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do use it; cat had temporarily become emptied, but am now repopulating, and it is a critical tool for updating company financial information. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you add the category manually to articles as a kind of personal to-do list? There is no indication in the article of what needs to be updated. Why not use the {{update inline}} tag? I suppose because that won't put it in this specific cat. MB 02:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not personal: it is a part of the workflow of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, similar to Category:Companies with year of establishment missing, others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 24 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:Kiev National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University[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 19:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article title Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University (uncontested move over a month ago), top-level main article Kyiv, parent and sibling categories. Corresponds to the official name, per website.  —Michael Z. 01:26, 22 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:Kiev Higher Party School people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article Kyiv, parent Category:People by university or college in Kyiv, and sibling categories apart from two pending move. Institution from the Soviet Communist Party educational system, since rolled into Kyiv University; see Communist Party of the Soviet Union#Higher Party School, Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#Party education system, and National Academy for Public Administration#History.  —Michael Z. 00:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per recent renaming of Kyiv. Oculi (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as a speedy nomination this was earlier opposed by User:Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lev!vich 03:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as anachronostic. This school is evidently a Soviet-era institution, a context in which Kiev is without a doubt the standard English form for the name of the city in and out of Wikipedia. See Talk:Kyiv § Related articles and Talk:Kyiv § RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles, where it has explicitely explained that the consensus to rename the Kyiv article in RM does not extend to contexts where other conventions exist or other periods of time. We do not have an article on the Kiev Higher Party School, despite the main article link on the category page, so the English-language convention for the name of this school is not clear. However a Scholar search returns a number of hits with various spelling using "Kiev": Higher Party School of the Communist Party of the Ukraine in Kiev, Higher School of the Party... whereas the same search using "Kyiv" does not bring anything related to the school on the first page of results. Place Clichy (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not anachronistic, as Kyiv is spelled this way in reliable sources on Soviet Higher Party Schools (Sov-Part-Shkolas, or VPSh’s; see Google Books, Google Scholar). (It is not anachronistic, period, as it is the current spelling and used in RS on every period in history.) The category contains nine articles, all notable for activities in the post-Soviet period. —Michael Z. 19:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, that that vague search for a proper name plus three common English words doesn’t name this extremely obscure topic in its top five results is not evidence of anything. —Michael Z. 19:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Levivich. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for Now If we had an article on Kiev Higher Party School/Kyiv Higher Party School I would blindly defer to that article name. Without that, we should blindly follow the name of the city. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_22&oldid=989107853"