Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11

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

September 11[edit]

Category:Masks in 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: delete. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. Masks are very unlikely to be a defining characteristic of any work of fiction and are generally used as a plot element. Even the film The Mask is not necessarily about the mask in question, but the main character's use of it to change forms - and it is already in Category:Fiction about shapeshifting. If it is decided to be kept, though, it should be renamed Category:Fiction about masks. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nonsensical nomination. If it is "typically a plot element", then it is typically defining for fictional works. Unlike production trivia (publication date, original publisher, original format of publication), the plot and setting are the most defining elements of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plot is indeed very DEFINING for fiction. --Just N. (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While plots are defining, not every plot element is defining. A plot is usually about the interaction between the characters in the film. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle and NONDEF. If a character uses a mask or, say, a particular kind of tool, vehicle or weapon, that is a device attributed to one character – it is not a plot element. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - works that aren't necessarily about masks, but which merely have masks in the story? No-no, no, no, no, and did I mention no? - jc37 19:19, 13 September 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:Gemstones in 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gemstones are unlikely to be defining for a fictional work, per WP:NONDEF, and are typically a plot element. Therefore, this category is unnecessary. If it is decided to be kept, however, it should be renamed Category:Fiction about gemstones. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggested rename. This is part of Category:Fiction by topic which predominantly uses the present wording. Note that jc37 has recently remarked in 2021 July 21#Category:Fiction about magic that it should be 'Magic in fiction'. I don't have any objections to delete as the valid subcategory has other suitable parents. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: In that discussion I said "This seems like it should be Category:Magic in fiction, while at the same time being Category:Works about magic." - The more I look at the fiction by topic subcats, the more I think it needs an overhaul of a cleanup. - jc37 19:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nonsensical nomination. If it is "typically a plot element", then it is typically defining for fictional works. Unlike production trivia (publication date, original publisher, original format of publication), the plot and setting are the most defining elements of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As they are DEFINING; Dimadick is right. And the renaming proposal is not at all acceptable b/c that wording describes a completely different matter. --Just N. (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While plots are defining, not every plot element is defining. A plot is usually about the interaction between the characters in the film. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle and NONDEF. Not a plot element, however. I think WP:SMALLCAT also applies here. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We shouldn't be categorising works of fiction by some object which appears in it. And Category:Fictional gemstones and jewelry exists for the objects themselves. - jc37 19:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – We are not bound by the choices made by editors in the past, nor in the rules promulgated by them. That certain categories were considered inappropriate is not an immutable rule. We—the editors of here and now—can chose to allow this category (and ones similar perhaps), so let's have that discussion, not "Guideline XYZ says we can't". As to those who claim this is a SMALLCAT, I say count again. The number of articles is several dozen. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One out of the many reasons why we don't categorise by fictional objects is that their inclusion in a work of fiction is subjective by the author. An author could include a laundry list of objects (including gemstones) in a particular work. Should we then create categories for every possible object ever added to a fictional work? Of course not. - jc37 19:35, 15 September 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:Sierra Nevada[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: disambiguate (option A), and there is sufficient support for expanding the qualifier to "United States" per Wikipedia:Category_names#How_to_name_the_country (this is the very example given in WP:C2B), as follows:
– Fayenatic London 12:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal A: Keep the (U.S.) disambiguator for all cats in the Sierra Nevada tree

Proposal B: Remove the (U.S.) disambiguator for all cats in the Sierra Nevada tree

Nominator's rationale: This is a reopening of a disjointed discussion that recently resulted in two contradictory consensuses and division within the category tree.

Timeline

I wanted to reopen a consolidated discussion with all the involved categories and the full context, so that a more comprehensive consensus could be achieved. I was not under the impression that all the participants in the latter discussion were aware of the first discussion. bibliomaniac15 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all untagged participants from the original RM regardless of !vote, although they may not be active, @Rreagan007, Necrothesp, Red Slash, and CactusJack:. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A based on the same reasons I gave for the subcategories discussion. I didn't participate in the earlier CFD for the parent, but I feel the arguments for dabbing the subcategories also apply to the parent. My subcategories CFD comment: WP:CAT and WP:CATNAME say to include a disambiguator when it's part of the article title, but don't address the primary topic. WP:C2D says "it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name". That wording in C2D implies that category names can include a disambiguator even though the primary topic does not. Given that, I'm convinced by the arguments in this discussion so far that dabbing the category is better for the reader experience and for the editors trying to apply the categories, and that those benefits outweigh consistency with the primary topic name. Schazjmd (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. Haha, reminds me of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 24#Corona in X. Schazjmd has correctly explained why C2D does not apply. At the end of the day, I fundamentally do not agree that the primary topic of a category name must be consistent with the primary topic of an article, and there is nothing in WP:CAT to require that be the case. For me, the bar for primary topic of a category is higher, because there is a greater need for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as not all users of the category will actually inspect its contents before using it, so the topic of the category must be apparent from the name alone. I consider the U.S. mountain range to be the primary topic of Sierra Nevada but not of Category:Sierra Nevada. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. This was the strong consensus from the latest discussion, well-supported by arguments from King of Hearts. I would recommend putting this into the guidelines at WP:D and WP:CATNAME so that we do not have to revisit in the future. — hike395 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to the two !votes above for being editors who voted for the article rename in the RM but are favoring a different name for the category. (In prior CFDs, some editors who opposed the RM article rename wanted to override using that name for the category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B (But A over the current state) I would have !voted differently in the Talk:Sierra Nevada#Requested move 20 April 2020 to remove the parenthetical, but I defer to that outcome. Categories should blindly follow main articles to aid navigation for readers. (Making editors less careless with WP:HOTCAT would certainly be nice but I see that issue as more carelessness than category naming.) Either A or B would be better than the current mismatch. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either option A or B is fine, as long as it is consistently done. Option B is acceptable too because the option includes leaving redirects, so that Hotcat users do not get confused. The status quo (with the top category in another format than all subcats) is the least favourable option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C: Change all the category names to the disambiguator (United States), e.g. Category:Sierra Nevada (United States), since we do not abbreviate country names in disambiguators. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B: Remove U.S. disambiguator from all categories in Sierra Nevada tree, per WP:C2D. Otherwise, Sierra Nevada should be moved back to its original title. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:C2D does not apply if the name is ambiguous: it cannot be used to remove disambiguators from category titles even when the article is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — hike395 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B The main article is called Sierra Nevada, and the category should match it. And the mountain range is included mostly in a single state (California), rather than an entire country. "United States" is not particularly apt here. Dimadick (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Option B Since I agree with the reasoning of the other people who voted for option B. Also, there's Category:Niagara Falls. Which then also has Category:Niagara_Falls,_Ontario and Category:Niagara_Falls,_New_York. I don't see why the same thing can't be done here when it needs to be (say for states, counties, Etc.), but still maintain a regular Category:Sierra Nevada category at the same time. That seems to be the logical, consensus based way to do things going off of similar categories. In the meantime, Category:Sierra Nevada (U.S.) isn't helpful because there's no Sierra Nevada outside of the United States. Except maybe a business or two, but if so, I don't think that it warrants a special "United States" category. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option A -- The US mountain range is not the primary topic. If anything the Spanish one is. Sometimes categories need a disambiguator even where the main article does not, because people will add a category without checking it is the right one. The classic case is categories relating to Birmingham are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, so that it does not collect content for Birmingham, Alabama. I see no reason why the disambiguator should not be "California", ratherw than US. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well crap. I didn't know there was a mountain range in Spain with the same name. So I struck my vote until I can research it more. That said, it's wrong to say it's the primary topic. If anything there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B because of main article title. But, I don't agree that the US range is primary and the article should be renamed Sierra Nevada (California). No Great Shaker (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A because we can't have ambiguous category names. No objection to California or United States rather than U.S. Oculi (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Never have ambiguous category names. --Just N. (talk) 12:16, 18 September 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.

Early Modern Aragonese and Castilian kings[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. Hog Farm Talk 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, they duplicate their parents Category:16th-century Spanish monarchs and so on. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with regret, as I find the British precedent implies "keep". I would have preferred to Convert to redirects but this would also need to be done in other similar cases. I looked at Charles I of England to establish the precedent and was shocked by the scale of category clutter, so that a more wide-ranging change would be welcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. --Just N. (talk) 12:19, 18 September 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:Khakas 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: merge to Category:Khakas. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per the main article (Khakas), since there does not seem to be a difference in scope between the categories according to their description. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, too few articles in the tree to merit a separate subcategory for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The people category is clearly for people of this ethnicity. We distinguish articles on people from articles on non-people subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, the only biography in the category does not even mention the person's ethnicity, so the category is virtually empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the two categories have different scopes (Category:Khakas people being for individuals), but as things stand at present there aren't really enough articles for a separate category. Upmerge with no prejudice against re-creation if and when... Grutness...wha? 03:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:46, 13 September 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:Khakas cuisine[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. Hog Farm Talk 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, none of the articles is specifically about Khakas cuisine. They are all general Mongolian / Turkic food items. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 11 September 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:Khakas musical instruments[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. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and move the article Jadagan to Category:Khakas music. Except for Jadagan, none are specifically Khakas instruments, they are used by various Mongolian and/or Turkic peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 11 September 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:Wikipedia variable-like templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia magic word templates. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar categories. MediaWiki variables is a kind of magic word. Perhaps, the target should be something like Category:Magic word-like templates, but I have not strong opinion on this. Just merging this one way or in reverse would be good enough for a start. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 11 September 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:Terms with Dutch[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. bibliomaniac15 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SHAREDNAME. 1857a (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rathfelder (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I see it all those terms are referring to Dutch culture origin and that is definitely DEFINING! Just like German Angst or French fries or French cinema. --Just N. (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:SHAREDNAME. The articles are already elsewhere in the Dutch tree (except Hollandaise sauce which is not clearly Dutch) which covers Just N.'s concern. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 18 September 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:Croatian principalities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Category:Croatian principalities

Category:Verizon Media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: On September 1, 2021, Verizon completed the sale of its 90% stake to Apollo Global Management, making Verizon Media rebranded to Yahoo Inc.. Ridwan97 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is correct to state that the new owners renamed the complete corporation to Yahoo!, dating fom 1 Sep 2021. --Just N. (talk) 12:46, 18 September 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_September_11&oldid=1047350874"