Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics[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: Procedural close. Oops, started at the wrong place in the category tree, plus additional issues (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: [Adjective] at the Summer Olympics is just bad English. This (and the whole category tree) needs to be renamed, to something else. We could match the commons category (which is "Equestrian sports") or we could match the usage of the navbox and the first sentence of the main topic article (whose title I've recently changed to match with basic requirements of the English language, Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics). I propose the second, since that's shorter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 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.

Empty yearly clean-up 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These are not project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion as the term is defined by WP:CSD#C1, so should not be retained despite being empty. A total of 8 different admins (Explicit, Fastily, RHaworth, Mojo Hand, Diannaa, Fram, VegaDark, Edgar181) have agreed with this claim and deleted these under C1 or G6, making it clear that the creator's unilateral addition of {{Empty category}} is against consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can include my name if you are going to talk about me, yes, I tagged these five pages as empty categories. Looking at just one page log, right here, you can see that some of these pages (except for 2005) have been repeatedly created and deleted, in fact, I've been both a page restorer and page deleter of these pages myself (I'm not sure why you didn't include me in your list of 8, now 9 admins). For maintenance categories that are periodically empty, rather than go through the cycle of creation and deletion, there have been times I put an empty cat tag on the page. I haven't done this very often as I usually tag empty categories (my CSD log is on the list of very long pages). I guess you could call that a "unilateral addition" but most editors who tag pages for all sorts of reasons are basing it on their own decision of what should be done, not a group consensus.
By the way, there are 64,762 transclusions of the empty cat tag and I imagine if you wanted to take the time to go through them, you would find other occasions where the use was questionable. In my years of work reviewing the daily Empty Category list, I've seen editors put the tag on a brand new, empty category to keep it from being deleted. Over the years, taking on the project of looking into use of the empty cat tag was something I have often thought about bringing to the Village Pump Proposals but there always seemed to be other work that needed to get done.
But back to this proposal, these categories are probably not necessary any more but I guess I saw them as more historical than utilitarian. We have one for every year of the project. But, go ahead, discuss, and of course, I'll accept the consensus of the CFD regulars. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include you because the point I was trying to make was that every single one of those admins disagrees with you about whether these should be retained as empty, and you obviously don't disagree with yourself. Nor would there be anything wrong with you unilaterally adding that template if it weren't for the fact that at least ten other people (those eight admins plus Emk9 and MrLinkinPark333 who added G6 tags) were known to disagree with you.
There categories are only becoming non-empty in the first place because WantedCategories patrollers are being lazy and creating backdated monthly cleanup categories from these years rather than emptying the original backdated "Article with <issue> from <month> <year>" category, meaning the argument for them being kept as empty makes little sense. And we don't generally keep categories for historical value. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 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.

Breweries by country[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, very underdeveloped tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I know about Germany there are lots of defunct brewery companies which mostly have had several decades of industrial prosperousness. Not all that are based in non-UK countries seem to have articles translated into en-Wikipedia. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose As most Category:Defunct breweries by country‎ cases have good growth pontential they should simply be kept. --Just N. (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all We should not keep categories based on speculation. If more articles about defunct breweries get added, then the categories can be recreated. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:20, 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:Modeling and simulation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Category:Modeling and simulation

Category:Quantification (science)[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: split (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Quantification used to be the category for an eponymous page that covered mainly the meaning of the word in logic and semantics. The main article was (rightly) split in 2014 to differentiate between the scientific method (Quantification (science)) and the logical concept (Quantifier (logic)). However, the category became associated with the former page even though the vast majority of the entries it contains refer to quantification in logic or semantics. The only entries that should stay here are Quantification (science), Ethics of quantification, Sociology of quantification and Statactivism. Felix QW (talk) 10:25, 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:Merlin[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. Zxcvbnm: feel free to split the existing category to the proposed target name as a new sub-category. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is malplaced, it should be a subcategory of Category:Works based on Arthurian legend and moved accordingly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Works about Merlin may be better grammar. Regardless of the rename target, the category should be purged, many articles are not specifically about Merlin. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's following the naming scheme of the entire "based on" category tree. Perhaps there might be some merit to renaming it but that's a different discussion altogether. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category includes locations of the Merlin legend, such as Brocéliande, where Merlin's tomb was located. These are not works. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 9 February 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:Aquificae[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. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Aquificae") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Aquificota).[1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please give some reference for that affirmation first. As it is now it's not decidable. --Just N. (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 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:Acidobacteria[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. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Acidobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Acidobacteriota).[4] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 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:Deinococcus–Thermus[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. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Deinococcus–Thermus") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Deinococcota).[5] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 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:Articles needing audio and/or video[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 Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ to Category:Wikipedia requested audio of orchestras, delete Category:Articles needing audio and or video. bibliomaniac15 07:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Articles on the Wikipedia site with this category are under consideration for Featured sounds status -> Wikipedia:Featured sounds is marked as historical. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging this way, the targets contain talk pages while the nominated categories do not. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, i think things have changed enough I think merging is no longer prudent.
  • It is clearly written on the category page that this category is related to Wikipedia:Featured sounds. This is a maintenance category and as the maintenance process related to the category is defunct, it seems obvious that the category should be deleted too. No? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I think you mean pages, and not page. I’m not sure why these categories keep getting confused. Anyhow, it was totally super tough, but I removed the link to the defunct project. Not sure why that wasn’t the first step before a CfD, but here we are. Now why do you think these categories need removal, and not the other file request categories? --awkwafaba (📥) 13:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the category creator is no longer active so there isn't any further clarification to be expected regarding the purpose of these categories in relationship with the defunct project. This does not lead somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I think the creator of the CfD would be more useful as to their own reasoning than the creator os the categories. But in any event, you were responding to my question on your opinion, not theirs. --awkwafaba (📥) 00:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: it still is. Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ) is in Category:Wikipedia requested music files ( 0 ), which is in Category: Wikipedia requested audio ( 483 ), which in turn is within Category: Articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 00:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. By moving the category there, that also implies that "and video" can be removed from the name of Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ), right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:15, 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:Psychology of political leaders[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:Psychological studies of heads of state. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename, we have a well-populated tree for heads of state in which this category may finds its home, while there isn't a well populated tree for political leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The books in the category do contain a psychological analysis of presidents though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:13, 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:Articles with information extracted by the RAMP editor[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. List added at Wikipedia talk:Tools/RAMP editor. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Tools/RAMP editor is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:10, 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:Songs based on music samples[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar categories have been attempted before and deleted via CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 11#Category:Songs which sample or interpolate other songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even more too wide and emcompassing than before. The article Sampling (music) covers a few examples as part of the text. Enough is enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 1 February 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_31&oldid=1076500353"