Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 8

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

January 8[edit]

Category:54th Venice Biennale[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) 02:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category without realistic potential for growth; upmerge to Category:Venice Biennale exhibitions whence it came czar 23:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did feel that the category had potential for growth. Looking at Category:58th Venice Biennale, I think if enough effort were to be invested, it might well be possible to create other articles that would fall under the category. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 9 January 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:Hibryds by AlarkiusJay[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: speedily moved to User:AlarkiusJay/sandbox, as it was evidently created in category space in error. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Novelty category about a book the page-creator wrote. No obvious purpose as a regular category, user category, or Wikipedia-project category. Created by a new user, recommend text be copied to his user-space or emailed to him and the category be deleted. Arguably qualifies as WP:G11/advertising but I'm trying not to be WP:BITEY here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 8 January 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:Errors reported by other category header templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Category:Errors reported by other category header templates

Architecture and landmarks in Sri Lanka by province[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) 08:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge these are two almost empty category layers except they largely duplicate the tree of buildings and structures. This is a follow-up on this and this similar earlier discussions. @William Allen Simpson, Justus Nussbaum, and RevelationDirect: pinging contributors to earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All Clicking through these, the intermediate layer doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All — Thanks for the notification. Let's find and fix all of these extra empty layers.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:57, 11 January 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.

Ballot proposals by year and state[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) 08:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. This nomination excludes California, Colorado and a few other states that have a larger amount of ballot measures. They may be added to the nomination after all if there is a need for more consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321, SportingFlyer, Justus Nussbaum, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This level of granularity hinders rather than helps navigation with such a small article count. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my earlier comments, not having these leads to unnecessary work and improper and inconsistent categorization, and it's better to be consistent with what we have in terms of "election year by region" categories. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In most cases the ballot measures for the state for the year should really only need a single article, so having separate categories is unnecessary. Number 57 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —  Excellent work! The earlier discussion of Michigan was simpler, as Michigan already officially numbers by year (<year> dash <number>). Some of these states do continuous numbering, so the year isn't as apparent. Having them in the larger categories will improve navigation, instead of requiring the user to hunt them down. Thanks for notifying me.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has the force and effect of law telling states how to conduct their elections?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — As is the case with ANY category containing so few entries, the desires a few editors have for micro-organization are greatly outweighed by the requirement that readers make an exponentially-increasing number of clicks to navigate between closely-related pieces of content. Remember, we're supposed to be crafting this encyclopedia to suit the needs of readers, not regular contributors. As for the nominator's rationale, any state with a robust initiative and referendum process will likely have a significant number of ballot measures in a given year, not just "California, Colorado and a few other states". This is a failure of the existing approach of building Wikipedia as a popularity contest and a topical POV exercise instead of "the sum total of human knowledge". To use my state of residence as an example, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that the only "notable" ballot measures are ones related to cannabis and LGBT issues? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RadioKAOS, I don't quite understand what your point is here? Yes, there are currently not many ballot measures covered, compared to what exists (I made a page on this here), but I don't see how relevant that is. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 18 January 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:Confirmed planets of the Gliese 581 system[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:Planets of the Gliese 581 system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless, no other planetary system has a separate category for confirmed planets. Kepler-1229b (talk) 15:26, 8 January 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:Dune (franchise) planets[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) 08:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article only. Also merge to Category:Fictional planets. TTN (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom to both cats. -2pou (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom to both cats. There used to be more articles in this category, but they have since been redirected.— TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom to both cats. Unlikely to receive more articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 10 January 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:Babylon 5 planets[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) 08:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only redirects. There is little chance articles will ever be added to it again. TTN (talk) 15:17, 8 January 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:Burbridge's Raid[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) 08:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More one-page "campaign" categories, WP:SMALLCAT, like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_4#Category:Operations_Near_Cache_River,_Arkansas. I have listed the contents on the parent page Category:Campaigns of the Western Theater of the American Civil War. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is no need to merge, the articles are already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out, Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too small to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:28, 13 January 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.

Number-one song 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related and similar categories:

Nominator's rationale: Following the consensus to delete Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles last month and some traction gained regarding such categorization in a now-archived discussion at WT:CHARTS a few months earlier, I think we can begin deleting the overblown categorization of songs reaching number one on any of these genre charts. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Songs are not defined by this achievement any more than a song peaking at #2 is defined by that achievement. Plus many of the more popular titles end up being categorized in multitude of similar categories. "Hello (Adele song)" alone is categorized in 31 different #1 song categories, including 5 of the above. The scheme needs to be parsed down or eliminated altogether (as was decided by consensus for number-one albums years ago through Cfd discussions such as this one and others). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can held accountable for adding several of these cats to articles, but lately, my opinions about these genre cats have begun to shift, and they can bloat up an article like nobody's business. Meanwhile, if you make genre cats for all the charts of a particular country, then you have to make them for all other genre charts to be fair. There aren't number-one cats for the genre charts of Australia, Hungary, and Ireland (like here), so why should we have all these ones and leave the others out in the dark? Also, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, do you think Category:UK Independent Singles Chart number-one singles should be added to this list as well? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that number-one song categories are a very valuable feature of Wikipedia, especially those of the primary national charts, and all genres of American charts, simply because of the vastness of the U.S. music market. Yes, such lists can be found in music books, but not all music lovers can afford the luxury of such pricey volumes. A great deal of time and effort has gone into the development of these categories. If Adele's "Hello" was able to reach the top of 31 international charts, then that honor should be duly acknowledged, not only vertically but also horizontally. Yes, categories can lengthen such pages somewhat, but categories are listed at the very bottom, so that is a weak argument. Reaching #1 on any given chart is often much more significant than reaching #2, not only because of the impression such songs make on the public psyche, but also because of their legacy on the charts. Many number-one hits often spend a month, two months or more at the top, so their popularity cannot be adequately measured by just a chart position. Retaining lists that have compiled these songs across the decades provides a unique snapshot of both culture and music history from a lateral perspective. - JGabbard (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete akin to WP:TOPTEN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While becoming the number one in something can be defining, I'm not sure it is in these genres. -RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and per consistency at [CFD]. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 17 January 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:Recipients of the Order of Nasr[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) 08:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:SMALLCAT)
The Order of Nasr is an Iranian award that is given out for military logistics. All but one—1—of the articles lists the award in the infobox but nowhwere in the body so the award does not seem generally defining. (I was contemplating creating a sibling to Category:Logistics personnel of the United States military but only 2 of these articles even mention logistics—2, 3—so the original intent of the award may differ from the actual usage.) The recipients are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 8 January 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:Dames of the Order of Louise[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) 08:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
This category has all our favorite Prussian princesses including Princess Alexandrine of Prussia (1803–1892), Princess Alexandrine of Prussia (1842–1906) and Princess Alexandrine of Prussia (1915–1980). Being a Prussian princess is absolutely defining which is why we have Category:Prussian princesses but automatically getting the Order of Louise for the same status (or being a more distant female relative in other royal houses) is non-defining. The current category contents are now fully listified right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 8 January 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_January_8&oldid=1002562969"