Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23[edit]

Category:Mineral butters[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. (For future reference for a list or article, the contents of the category were Antimony trichloride, Arsenic trichloride, Bismuth chloride, Tin(IV) chloride, and Zinc chloride.)
Nominator's rationale: No main article. Going through the articles in question, it seems to be a case of WP:SHAREDNAME, i.e. chemical compounds known historically as "butter of M" (M = Zn, As, Sn, Sb, Bi). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a case of a shared name. Mineral butters share physical (soft) and chemical (inorganic chloride) properties.[1] The terms used to be more common, but now the systematic names are used more often. Since there isn't a main article (and there's not really enough to say about it to be worth creating a main article), I think it would be better to delete the category and put a brief explanation of mineral butters at the butters disambiguation page. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this at either Butters or Butter (disambiguation). - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now I'm open to a well sourced main article changing my mind but, without that, my read is the same: this is likely a shared name cat without navigational benefit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- It is useful for archaic chemical terms to be recorded in WP, but I do not think we should encourage categories based on such terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2021 (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:Topics in science fiction[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. Ah, Stefanomione. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category was created in 2014 by user:Stefanomione, but I cannot distinguish its purpose from the target category which is from 2004. Even Stefanomione admitted the very next day after creating this category that "in this field, 8 [themes and topics] categories have the same content".[2] The main article is List of science fiction themes. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 23 February 2021 (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.

People from Trikala (regional unit)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Trikala (62,000 people) and Kalabaka (9,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine[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) 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yahoo! Widgets appears to be defunct. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 23 February 2021 (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:Wheeled motor vehicles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and mostly ignored intermediate categorisation. Category:Wheeled motor vehicles is effectively "Non-four wheeled motor vehicles" as it conspicuously doesn't have a four-wheeled subcategory making it not actually contain the majority of wheeled motor vehicles. LukeSurl t c 17:09, 23 February 2021 (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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Aosta Valley[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) 01:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one. Rathfelder (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we leave the dioceses, which do relate to the region, and dispense with the intermediate category for the bishops? Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no good reason to organize by region within a country.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the subcat to Category:Bishops of Aosta, as that is the title. We do not need to specify RC since there will be no rival bishops for the title. The sole article is in fact renamed to the Diocese of Aosta, which should be parented to Category:Aosta valley and the Category:Archdiocese of Turin, rather than directly to RC dioceses in Italy. We seem to have had pedants at work in this tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Italy is one of the few places in the world where sub-national categorisation makes sense. If you allow it for most Italian regions, then you have to allow it for Aosta Valley, even though it can only ever have one entry since the diocese and the region are co-terminous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Roman Catholic diocese in Italy. There is no reason to brake out one diocese into a seperate category, and no reason that some dioceses can not be directly kept at that parent category, so there is no reason to impose small cat to this category of one thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (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:Bishops in Aosta Valley[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. (It can't be merged to Category:Bishops of Aosta because Category:Bishops of Aosta is the only content in the nominated category. You can't merge a category to itself.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Bishops of Aosta, already in Category:People from Aosta Rathfelder (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it may be treated as a case of the "SMALLCAT exception rule", as part of a complete set in Category:Roman Catholic bishops by region in Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Leave the bishops in their dioceses and national categories. Let the dioceses have a regional as well as a national life as they are more suited to geograpghical dispersion. Not perfectly though - some Italian dioceses straddle two regions (Friuli ?). Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (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:Pop EPs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#Category:Pop EPs

Category:Technology demonstration satellite[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) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: plural form fgnievinski (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2021 (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:Northern California Public Broadcasting[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) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy C2D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:35, 24 February 2021 (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:Antiates[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, merging content to Category:Valerii. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's standard to include gens name in categories like these. ★Trekker (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just go ahead and delete it. Too few pages, not a family branch worth categorizing. Avilich (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per below, merging is indeed the best option. I often forget this is a possibility with categories. Avilich (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Category:Valerii—all of the Valerii Antiates should be there. For that matter I think that should be the case with most categories for individual stirpes of Roman gentes—and was, until recently. Hardly any Roman gentes have as many as a dozen articles about any particular stirps, or more than a few dozen about all their members combined. As for "Antiates", even though I saw and read through this debate a few days ago, seeing it in the CGR article alerts this morning, I thought the category was for residents of Antium—literally what the name means. We might not need a category if we don't have many articles about them, but that's who should logically go in a category with this title. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (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:John B. Pickett fellows[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) 00:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:PERFCAT)
The John B. Pickett fellowship is scholarship program for mid-career police officers to attend Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Jerome Holmes received a masters through the program which is defining but he is already categorized under Category:John F. Kennedy School of Government alumni for that same degree. The other 4 articles in this category attended a 3-week program at the school which doesn't seem remotely defining. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2021 (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:Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry[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) 00:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT)
The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is a group of scientists that attempts to debunk paranormal claims and the fellowship recognizes skeptical scientists or activists. The vast majority of these people are scientists known for their research in their respective field and, while they may have once debunked something on the side at some point, the articles don't tend to mention this award at all. (There are some exceptions, like Susan Gerbic and Mick West who are already categorized as skeptics.) The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2021 (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/2021_February_23&oldid=1012377389"