Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6[edit]

Category:X-Men (TV series)[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 renamed already using WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per title of main article, X-Men: The Animated Series Indagate (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is C2D. Gonnym (talk) 21:22, 7 July 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:Characters in works by Geoffrey of Monmouth[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, not to mention most of these figures are actually just historical persons. ★Trekker (talk) 20:46, 6 July 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:The Fireman (band)[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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only 3 albums already in an appropriate set category, this eponymous category is unnecessary. Can merge to parent or delete outright. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:10, 6 July 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:Auskick participants[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Generally impossible to find a reliable source to confirm that they were Auskick participants, and given that about 200000 kids participate each year, it is not at all defining. The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom, it's a non defining characteristic - participation in a non-selective entry children's sport program - and impossible to verify or populate with any degree of completeness. Aspirex (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The NAB provides this info on players every single AFL round in the AFL record and VFL record. Auskick keeps registration data and also publishes this on collectable AFL Footy cards. Only around 10-20% of AFL players started their careers with Auskick, it is not a huge figure but it forms a key part of the pathway for many athletes. A measure of the success of the program is the quality of players it produces. For the athletes that come out of it, the age that they started playing is often a key attribute to their later success in the sport. It often also forms the missing link in their choice of sports if they've pursued other sports and then come back to AFL later in their career. If it were to become too large I would propose further breaking it up into states/countries. There are over 450,000 players in Victoria each year and there is a category "Category:Australian rules footballers from Victoria (Australia)".--Rulesfan (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these sources and approaches apply only for AFL players. This does not work for other sportspeople or non-sportspeople who participate in the program as pre-teens and are not meaningfully defined by that participation. Aspirex (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coment if that is a primary objection then could it be renamed Auskick participants who became professional Australian footballers or Professional Australian footballers who participated in Auskick? I think that the age they started playing defines them and is just as meaningful as if they scored a goal with their first kick, played their first game in a Grand Final‎, were born overseas, or are New Zealand Māori ... or any of the other categories currently in use. --Rulesfan (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it is registered carefully it is still not a defining characteristic. At most convert it to a list, but I can imagine there will be objections to a list too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a youth sports programme, participation is not defining. "Australian-rules footballers who participated in Auskick" might be a viable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 12 July 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:Stroke-related deaths in Brazil[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Death by stroke is common. Only 1 article in most of the subcategories - which if this is supported I will add to the nomination. I would happily get rid of the whole of Category:Deaths by country subdivision. Place of death, when it is related to disease, is very rarely defining, and tends to be determined by the location of hospitals. Hardly any biographies are notable because of the location of death. Rathfelder (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with * Pppery *. We need to look at the death related categories and get rid of most of them. But there are rather a lot. Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Causes of death are always defining, unlike trivia like occupation and religious beliefs. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cause of death, when disease related, is very rarely what makes a person notable. Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a trivial cause of death. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 8 July 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:Wars 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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining, while calling something "military fiction" is. There does not seem to be a pertinent reason not to merge the two. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. These are not the same thing at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 12 July 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:Neanderthals 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, works in this category should specifically be about neanderthals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as clearer and more defining. Jontesta (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a category name phrased more clearly as based on a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing. "Fiction about" implies only fiction that is specifically set in the genre. "In fiction", on the other hand, is a catch-all for any article that might be about fictional things vaguely connected to the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the presumption that this is an attempt to tighten the scope of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 19 July 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:Heraldry 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. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 21:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. I can't see sufficient articles here that are specifically about heraldry, if any at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:52, 6 July 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:Mining 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, works in this category should specifically be about mining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to make this more clear and defining. Jontesta (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a category name phrased more clearly as based on a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing. "Fiction about" implies only fiction that is specifically set in the genre. "In fiction", on the other hand, is a catch-all for any article that might be about fictional things vaguely connected to the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about.
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:Solitude 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What "solitude" means appears to be subjective in the case of this category. Are fictional outlaws or orphans really experiencing solitude in all the works they appear? This category is unnecessary as it is simply a combination of unrelated things that may have elements of being alone (and that is only possibly). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I don't see a clear definition that would salvage this. Jontesta (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I do not think this is defining. Especially considering many fictional orphans end up in over packed Orphanages, they are probably often an example of never finding solitude at all. Many outlaws operate in groups, so the idea that they exemplify solitude is not supported either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 19 July 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:Revenge 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, works in this category should specifically be about revenge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom, to make this a more clear and defining category. Current category is too vague. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a category name phrased more clearly as based on a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing. "Fiction about" implies only fiction that is specifically set in the genre. "In fiction", on the other hand, is a catch-all for any article that might be about fictional things vaguely connected to the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 12 July 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 written by Hannah Wilson[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no article for this person, but there is an Olympian and Home & Away character with the same name and the category needs to be disambiguated. Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support, I created the category and did not realise this was the case. Its a non-controversial move. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:11, 6 July 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:19th-century Russian botanists[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. ✗plicit 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sub-categories
Nominator's rationale: To fit into Category:Botanists of the Russian Empire. At present Category:People of the Russian Empire by occupation is not divided by century, although Category:Russian people by occupation is, which is confusing. The Russian Empire extended from 1721 to 1922, so I'm thinking of renaming all the 18th and 19th century categories, and I'd like to know whether this seems sensible. Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is nothing wrong with the category name. Just make it a subcategory of Category:Russian botanists, just like Category:20th-century Russian botanists is Marcelus (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not if we have categories Category:Russian botantist and Category:Botanists of the Russian Empire, it's logical that they need subcategories: Category:19th-century Russian botanists and Category:19th-century botanists of the Russian Empire respectively. The first one will contain botanists of the Russian ethnicty, the second one botanists from the Russian Empire, some characters will fit in both categories, some won't. Marcelus (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support per nom, and to remove ambiguity. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the surrounding category hierarchy to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 08:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: if approved then all of the existing category names should be redirected, to enable navigation from e.g. C20 siblings using {{navseasoncats}}. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, consistent with everything said above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The Russian Empire was multi-ethnic, so that implying that they were all Russian is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all these are meant to group people by being nationals or subjects of the Russian Empire. A great many such nationals and subjects would identifiy that they were connected with the Russian Empire but would not have self described themselves as Russian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 19 July 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_July_6&oldid=1109723751"