Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4[edit]

Category:Military history of the Buyid dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#Category:Military history of the Buyid dynasty

Infinite[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 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:GDAB, the article's name had just changed. -St3095 (?) 04:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The target is unclear as group does not only refer to a musical group. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron is right, it should be "musical group" instead of "group". That also applies to the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: St3095, please tag all the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support to match the parent article Infinite (group). There are no other title matches at Infinite and it is unrealistic to believe the average reader will be searching for any other subject other than the K-pop group using these search terms. ✗plicit 07:13, 20 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:Animated Flash (comics) films[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. ✗plicit 07:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too few animated Flash films to make this category as it is now worth having. ★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 4 June 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:Bishops of the Old Catholic Confederation[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 delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category has existed for almost 10 years. Yet, it has only one page part of it, and the Old Catholic Confederation does not seem notable at all. Therefore, I think this category should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 18:53, 4 June 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:Fictional body parts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Category:Fictional body parts

Military of Iceland[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:Military of Iceland to Category:Defence of Iceland; no consensus for Category:military equipment of Iceland, which is therefore kept; merge Category:Naval ships of Iceland to Category:Ships of the Icelandic Coast Guard, as that exists (and largely overlaps) already. I will redirect the old categories. For the record, there is also Category:Icelandic Coast Guard, so no need to create Category: Coastguard of Iceland. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no military in Iceland and thus the current category system is an fallacy. Having an category of naval ships when there are none, and having an category for an military where there is none, is out of order. This has been an annoyance to multiple local (icelandic) wikipedians for years (see Talk:Defence of Iceland), and it is time to end it. This was recognised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of Iceland.

Cattree:

New:

Defence of Iceland > Patrol vessels of Iceland > Ships of the Icelandic Coast Guard > Ægir-class offshore patrol vessels

Other subcategories of the main cat remain the same.

Now:

Military of Iceland
no subcategories

--Snævar (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move per nom, we should not misname things for supposed consistency. There is no military and we should not imply such in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination's proposed changes, in general. For example, a country can have military equipment even if they do not have military. Support User:Peterkingiron's proposed changes above (timestamp of 15:58, 8 May 2022 utc). - jc37 09:26, 30 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.

People by populated place in Spain[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. ✗plicit 01:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories consist of only 1-3 articles.
  • Oppose strictly on the stated rationale - this does not fail WP:SMALLCAT, because there is not a small, finite number of articles which could belong to these categories. I agree that they're not strictly necessary right now, but IMO that's not a reason to merge them and prevent them from existing in the future. If there's something about Spanish geography that makes this more specific than I realize, I would change my vote. -fuzzy510 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SMALLCAT does not require crystal balling about a finite or infinite number of articles that could belong to a category. If at some point in time there is more content it will be easy enough to recreate a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - WP:SMALLCAT applies. In general it is wise to wait until there are at least 5 articles before creating categories (unless being 'from Teguise' say is defining, which I doubt). Who is the nominator, BTW? Oculi (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a lot of busy work for a net negative to Wikipedia. Many of these categories have more than one entry, and so should be kept. I will add that I do not support SMALLCAT.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being from a province is not the same as being from a small town and such a mass merge will create more problems in the future than it solves, some actually do not fit the small category criteria either.Abcmaxx (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which problems would it cause? Which categories do not fit here? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all None of the opposing arguments are confincing. They consist of, in order, unlikely speculation that has now had over a month to come true but hasn't, a request to ignore establsihed precedent for no good reason, and an argument mostly lacking sufficient details to understand. As a general principle, it is in my opinion not appropriate to argue that a category should not be merged to its parent categories because articles in the subcategories don't belong in the parent -- if that were truly the case then either the subcategory is miscategorized or the articles don't belong in the subcategory either. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all with no precedent against splitting if in the future we get more articles. Yes, we could get more articles, but we should base category organization on the articles we have, and this has gone nearly 3 months with no significant changes. We should categorize on what we have now, not on a hypotherical future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Pppery. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 29 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.

2D/monolayer_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: keep and put Category:Two-dimensional nanomaterials as a subcategory of Category:Monolayers (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are synonyms, and cover the same articles. If we are very technical, "monolayer" refers only to a single layer, whereas two-dimensional is sometimes used more loosely to refer either to a single layer or to a few layers that act like a single layer in terms of some property. But I don't think they are distinct enough to have two categories. Category:Monolayers is probably the better name for the merged category, but I'm not sure why it's currently listed under Category:Polymers, which is unrelated. Looking for consensus on both 1) the need to merge the categories 2) what the merged name should be. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 13:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge. but Two-dimensional nanomaterials would be submicroscopic and so a subset of two-dimensional materials. We now also have bilayer and trilayer materials in research. so not sure what to do about them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I find that bilayers etc can be classified as 2.5-D materials. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. These are absolutely not synonyms. Two-dimensional nanomaterials are a one-atom-thick crystalline material like graphene, while monolayers may be molecular or disordered. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In certain contexts, they do get treated as synonyms (e.g. doi:10.1038/s41377-020-00374-9). Looking at the pages currently within these categories, it seemed like we were in one of those contexts: talking exclusively about crystalline materials. But based on what you're saying, having Category:Polymers as a parent category might imply that Category:Monolayers was originally intended to be for molecular monolayers. It's a bit confusing, because that's not the way that category is currently being used. Do you think there's enough pages like Self-assembled monolayer to create a new category for molecular systems? 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 23:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing just one paper isn't convincing; it could be an outlier with an incorrect usage. I'd either try to pull a representative sample of multiple papers, or see if there's a formal definition from ISO, ACS, or another organization. Personally, I don't recall the term monolayer being widely used to refer to graphene or anything similar, but I see how it could be used that way. I believe the solution here is to make Category:Two-dimensional nanomaterials a subcategory of Category:Monolayers. That way any articles in the former category shouldn't be duplicated in the latter anyway. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:05, 4 June 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.

A24 (company) categories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#A24 (company) categories

Category:Sudanese feature films[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 delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding prior consensus, we don't have an established practice of categorizing films for "feature" status per se. "Film" is just automatically assumed to mean a feature film by default in English, and has to be explicitly modified by the adjective "short" to mean anything other than a feature film -- and since it's far more rare for a short film to actually get adequate WP:GNG-worthy coverage to pass our inclusion criteria anyway, by far the majority of our film articles are about feature films as it is. So we categorize feature films by genre (with subcategorization for the smaller minority of short films where warranted), not for feature status per se.
Merging not needed, as both of the articles here are already in other appropriate Sudanese film categories. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 4 June 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:ISO 639 name from code 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. ✗plicit 07:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The once many templates were reduced to three and merged into this category. This should be renamed to reflect that. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 4 June 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:Scholars and academics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Category:Scholars and academics

Railway stations in Russia by federal subject[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. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 17:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
more siblings nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, in most cases only 1 article, sometimes 2-4 articles in each of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SMALLCAT seems to continually be mentioned here, but it states 'Small with no potential for growth' - with no potential for growth. Generally these are part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", and that SMALLCAT specifically states "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." The Russian wikipedia category for Amur Oblast has 16 entries, Bashkortostan and its subcats has 30, Kirov Oblast 41, Sakhalin Oblast has 125. Leningrad Oblast's subcats combined comes to 313 articles. Many large railway stations in large cities do not have articles yet (eg ru:Кострома-Новая, ru:Иваново (станция), ru:Калуга I, etc etc) let alone smaller towns, villages. Nominations under SMALLCAT because the category at the moment has less than five articles, without researching if a category meets the 'no potential for growth' criteria, should be avoided. Spokoyni (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. If in the past 20 years this small number of articles has been written, the chance that it will grow by a factor five any time soon is extremely small. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why must it be 'any time soon'? There is nothing in SMALLCAT or anywhere else to say that there is a deadline on when articles must be written by to take the total to over five in each category (or indeed that containing five articles is not a small category but that four is), and wikipedia continues to expand - for example I've just written a new station article which takes Category:Railway stations in Samara Oblast to five entries, so that should be struck from this nomination under your definition of SMALLCAT. I work on Russian-related articles and there is a slow and steady drip of articles on these railway stations that has already taken a number of the categories in this category tree past the five article mark. If you are looking through categories to find ones that have less than five articles, and not taking the time to consider whether there is the potential for growth, you really shouldn't be nominating categories under WP:SMALLCAT. The heading of that section is 'Small with no potential for growth'. That section, in its near entirety, reads "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme ... Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Spokoyni (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the nomination is that it is not a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, rather it is a small scheme with many subcats having only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 5 June 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:Paintings of the Madonna and Child[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child

Category:Melodic percussion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#Category:Melodic percussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_4&oldid=1109731525"