Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 7 June 9 >

June 8[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities[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 17:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics) was recently closed as delete, and since there were concerns about the label being purely WP:OR without a clear definition, I am also nominating this category for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 8 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:Interwiki redirect[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) 05:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not quite sure of the purpose of this, but I think it's trying to duplicate Category:Interwiki link templates Le Deluge (talk) 22:41, 8 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:1st-century BC establishments in Germany[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. For the record, the current contents are [[Bonn]{ and Xanten. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, Germany did not exist in the first century BC. The two articles are properly in Category:10s BC establishments in the Roman Empire and in Category:Cities in North Rhine-Westphalia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) if the category is not deleted I support the rename as a second best solution. Generally I expect that categorizing by province and century will lead to excessively small categories though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what happened in both these places were agents of the Roman Empire established some sort of settlement or fort at the site. Does it really make sense to categorize these modern German cities based on such an event, especially since the second one (not Bonn, I forgot what its name is) mentions there were settlements in the area over 1000 years before that? I would argue delete as not really defining for the cities as they exist today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 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:Anglican church buildings in Canada[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. A clear majority were of the view that such a change would create a confusion between buildings and congregations. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 17:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The move would make the category name more concise. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, that would be confusing as there is only one Anglican Church of Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is a clear difference between bricks-and-mortar and congregations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The target is an empty cat-redirect. It would be better if Anglican Church of Canada was made a main article of the subject. We have seesawed between categories for churches, church buildings and even congregations, but most articles are largely about the buildings, so that the consensus was to go with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it is always better to be clear what is being meant. This is for buildings not congregations, nor one of the schismatic churches, nor any of the Episcopalian branch churches expanding up from the US -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All of the subcategories in Category:Anglican church buildings in Canada state they are about "church buildings" so unless the general identification changes for these types of categories from "church buildings" to "churches", I think this parent category title should stay "church buildings". If we are going to start identifying categories like this as "churches", then a broader nomination should probably be done instead of arguing one category at a time. But if you go into the CFD archives, I'm sure you can find instances when this distinction has already been debated at great length. Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 11 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:Pranksters[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 03:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is an especially useful category, as it seems to be a catch-all for people who do "funny" protests or publicity stunts, random comedians, and god knows what else. (Femen and Wu Ming are both in here, as is Banksy.) I can see how a much, much more narrowly defined subcategory of this could be useful (something like "people associated with prank television/radio programs" or something) but I don't think a large category for "people who have, at some point, said something untrue in an arguably funny way" is particularly useful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, in the rationale nominator seems to suggest that the category needs purging or splitting, which is no longer feasible after the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, has the nom changed their rationale? If not, all I can see is the suggestion that it might be more helpful is heavily purged. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Roscelese and Qwerfjkl: not quite, but nom's objection is a too broad scope and this does not logically lead to the conclusion that the category should be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Marcocapelle: I still support deletion because "change scope, rename and remove most of the contents" is functionally a "delete and consider creating something different." I do not support an upmerge to "comedians", which is also not useful or apt. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose upmerge to Comedian. I don't see how folks like Banksy, The Residents or Jello Biafra could be considered comedians. Many pranksters do it as political, social or artistic satire, not for pure comedy purposes. I would support a narrowing or splitting this category to be more specific as a lot of people are lumped together in this prankster category who do this kind of stunt or performance art for very different reasons. They aren't all Johnny Knoxville-type pranksters. Liz Read! Talk! 17:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is too broad a category and tends to group together too many unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a valid category of a notable topic. The addition of the category 'Films about pranks' has greatly expanded its reach and defined parameters. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: If this category is not kept then a manual review is needed to ensure that all members are in suitable alternatives e.g. comedians, stunt performers, TV personalities, activists or performance artists, as e.g. Brian G. Hughes is now but was not. I have checked articles F to L, and in the event of deletion recommend that Allen Funt be moved up to Category:Practical jokes as a leading exponent of the genre. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as appropriate. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 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.

Category:Television series by Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions[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. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed from Goodson-Todman to just Mark Goodson in 1981 when Todman died. Most of these were created after Todman's death, and the Goodson-only name existed well into the modern era, so using the newer name makes it more inclusive Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 8 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:Shopping malls by management company[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: relist entire tree for deletion. Consensus seems to be that this entire categorization scheme is probably not necessary and should be deleted. Procedurally, this should be a relist of the entire tree. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am looking to split the child categories of this entire category tree into "built by" and "owned by" categories. That is, Category:Cafaro Company -> Category:Shopping malls built by Cafaro Company and Category:Shopping malls owned by Cafaro Company; Category:Simon Property Group -> Category:Shopping malls built by Simon Property Group and Category:Shopping malls owned by Simon Property Group, etc.

Given that most of the companies in Shopping malls by management company have both built and developed malls, and may sell holdings to other companies over time, I think that all of the eponymous categories should be split accordingly into "developed by" and "owned by". (For instance, Briarwood Mall is owned by Simon, but was built by Taubman Centers.) The developer behind a building such as a shopping mall is a defining trait as much as the current owner, so I feel it is appropriate to categorize both where applicable. In most cases, the original developer is already listed in {{infobox shopping mall}}, so it should be easy to determine cases where "built by" and "owned by" are different.

This will also allow categorization for defunct developers such as Homart Development Company, The Hahn Company, and Mills Corporation.

(Note: As far as I can tell, Hull Property Group, JLL, Kohan Retail Investment Group, and Namdar Realty Group have never built malls, only acquired them, but their categories should still be moved to the "owned by" nomenclature if this is approved. Likewise, Brookfield never built any malls under the Brookfield name, but owns many built by the predecessor companies General Growth Properties/GGP, Rouse, and Homart.)

If the split is to include past developers, then the following should be considered too:

Category:Simon Property Group -> Simon Property Group; Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation; Glimcher Realty Trust; Mills Corporation

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group -> General Growth Properties; The Rouse Company; Homart Development Company

Category:CBL Properties --> CBL Properties; Arlen Realty and Development Corporation Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds potentially useful, but I have some questions.
    1.  Choice of noun: malls, centres or centers?
    2.  Choice of verb: would "managed" be useful instead of, or as well as, "owned"? Some companies manage centres owned by others e.g. a local authority. The infobox lists all three roles.
    3.  Would centres that have changed owners be categorised by both the current and former owner?
    4.  For centres built and owned by e.g. Westfield and later managed by another company, is it necessary to categorise as owned by Westfield, or should that taken as read given that they would be in Category:Shopping centres built by Westfield?
    5.  Would it be useful to split e.g. Category:Shopping centres owned by Westfield to Category:Shopping centres formerly owned by Westfield? (Cf. the existing Category:Former Westfield centres in Australia.) For defunct companies, presumably only the latter would be required.
    6.  Where companies have merged, would we categorise only by the current/latest name? This is the usual practice in other category hierarchies for companies. Should this apply for both "built" and "owned"?
    7.  Where companies have split, would we categorise only by the current/latest name? Should this apply for both "built" and "owned"?
  • Hope this is helpful food for thought. I am not seeking to get the discussion bogged down, just anticipating questions worth clarifying. But my questions may indicate that the proposal could end up with unhelpful granularity (fractured categories) or proliferation of categories. – Fayenatic London 05:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fayenatic london has a fair point that categorizing by ownership leads to issues with transfer of ownership. Starting to wonder if we should categorize shopping malls by company at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mall changes ownership, then it can be recategorized. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TNT categorising any property "...by management company". There is a huge difference between "by company", and "by management company". Each of the Category:Buildings and structures by company may also have one or more management companies managing the site. A management company could be anything from a service provider (janitorial, landscaping, etc), to a rent collector, to essentially being a landlord, and more. The term is just too broad. See also Property management. If someone would like to list malls by who they were built by, please check out Lists of shopping malls. - jc37 10:08, 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.

Category:Crimes by country and century[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent category names, sub-category names, and precedent for decades at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 21#Category:Crimes in Europe by decade. I propose that categories by Year be processed on the Speedy page if this set by Century is agreed. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 8 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:Missouri Lifestyle Journalism 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: listify and delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, this is a non-defining characteristc. User:Namiba 13:36, 8 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:Battle of Kyiv (2022)[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:Kyiv offensive (2022). (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 15:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it does not look very useful to keep this separated from its parent category. Also a borderline smallcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Only four articles and little scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as there is little scope for expansion and fairly small distinction between the two.--Mvqr (talk) 15:20, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_8&oldid=1109731521"