Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 22

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

January 22[edit]

Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format

Category:Aquificae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Aquificae

Category:Acidobacteria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Acidobacteria

Category:Deinococcus–Thermus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Deinococcus–Thermus

Vrije Universiteit Brussel[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 and disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article - Vrije Universiteit Brussel and I think be clearer. But there are three universities located in Brussels, Belgium:

Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Comment. I fully agree that there is a benefit in splitting the category into three listed, but what is the rationale for this approach? There is no rationale for assuming VUB is intended; "Free University of Brussels faculty/alumni" should refer, if anything, to the pre-1969 institution. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split -- Both the Flemish and Francophone universities have names that translate to the present cat-name. The nom needs to provide wach article with a new category relating to the three institutions listed. When someone can assure us that this has been done, the presnrt categories can be deleted. It is not fair to ask a closing admin to undertake a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already alumni and faculty subcategories for Université libre de Bruxelles and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now sorted the articles between the three universities as best I can. Clearly many editors have found this confusing so they may not all be right. The articles in the Free University of Brussels categories belong to the Vrije Universiteit after 1969. Those before 1969 are in the Free University of Brussels (1834–1969) categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. There is clearly a relation between these universities, and confusion between the names. The structure should be:
As Rathfelder already split articles that should belong to the various universities, creating this structure should be easy. Place Clichy (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've discovered that the history of many universities in France is as complicated as this - sometimes more so. Category:University of Paris faculty is the most complicated. Do people think we should leave articles about people from universities which have split up in the parent categories - as seems commonest in France - or should we make new categories for the child universities, which might be quite small as these splits are often quite recent? And just to add to the confusion, some of them have recombined. Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content. I am presuming that advocates of split support renaming as well but would like to have e.g. Category:Free University of Brussels faculty recreated as a parent category, which is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2022 (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:Modeling[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 and disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to contrast more clearly versus Category:Scientific modeling; and also to align with subCategory:Models (profession). Keep Category:Modeling as a disambiguation page (analogous to Category:Models). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding disambiguation, for consistency with the subcategory and for greater clarity. Regarding the spelling, "modelling" appears in both the Merriam-Webster and Lexico (US English) online dictionaries, with no indication that its usage is restricted to British English, whereas "modeling" is noted in the Lexico UK English dictionary as "US verb modeling". Does this mean that the spelling with two Ls is an area of MOS:COMMONALITY between American and British English? Ham II (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to avoid confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (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:Golden Raspberry Award winners[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. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To call this "winners" is misleading when the award carries a negative connotation and is a way of saying "this was the worst _____ of the year". We'd therefore be better off using "recipients" instead as one does still receive this award, it's just not the type people give as praise like Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, etc. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (if necessary) then delete -- Whatever the merits (or demerits) of this category, it offends against WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron, possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People and things are not defined by winning anti-awards. This is a very clear case of over categorization by "award".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's absolutely legitimate to have negative awards! No serious reasons at all to delete it! CfD should not be just about private tastes. --Just N. (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no listifying is necessary. These are listed by both year and category as seen here: -2pou (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2022 (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:Ticino rapid transit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 30#Category:Ticino rapid transit

Category:People from Spring Hill, Barbour County, Alabama[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) 07:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. When a US place needs a county disambiguator it is almost always a sign it is not a significant enough place to justify categorizing people being from that specific place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (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 simulation software[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Category:Scientific simulation software

Category:Trigonal crystals[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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category structure. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:03, 22 January 2022 (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:Triclinic crystals[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. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Content is identical to Category:Triclinic crystal system, apart from main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already part of the parent categories' trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2022 (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:Tetragonal crystals[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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Content is identical to Category:Tetragonal crystal system. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to address all three of these nominations concerning categories of crystals. I discussed this with Kent G. Budge back in October (see User talk:Kent G. Budge#Categories of minerals). I wrote there,
Actually, I think it's better to have both a category "Cubic crystal system" and a category "Cubic crystals". At Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization they say there are two kinds of categories, "topic categories" and "set categories". "Cubic crystal system" is a topic category, whereas "Cubic crystals" is a set category.
and Kent said "Okay, that makes sense". This of course applies to the above mentioned categories, not just to "Cubic crystals" and "Cubic crystal system". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2022 (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:Asian-American issues[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 12:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lacks a well-defined scope, and is largely redundant to other subcategories of Category:Asian-American society. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 22 January 2022 (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:African American–Asian relations[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT — contains only 1992 Los Angeles riots, which does not appear to directly involve race relations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (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/2022_January_22&oldid=1075584485"