Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14[edit]

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you did the split, wouldn’t the “managed by” and “owned by” just be sub-cats of the main categories for the management companies. Why delete them? That seems like an un-needed step. SecretName101 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've taken the liberty to strike out Category:Central Group, which I've removed from the category as it was miscategorised. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all that are valid eponymous categories, and reorganise as appropriate. The current categorisation of many of these categories as shopping malls is erroneous. See for example Category:JCPenney, which contains items such as J. C. Penney Historic District and Category:JCPenney people. They should not be deleted whether or not Category:Shopping malls by management company is. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having categories for companies with multiple articles about their subsidiaries is usual practice. These are no different to the BP, NatWest Group or Nike categories. Some may need tweaking as suggested by Paul 012, but to delete would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Untreegoo (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK my understanding of the above reactions and of the previous discussion in conjunction is that the categories should be purged from shopping malls but not deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the previous discussion, I'm thinking Johnpacklambert's main argument, that malls change management company a lot, might be skewed towards an American-centric view of the industry. Briefly looking at the American categories, the members indeed do not appear to share a strong association with the companies. But in contrast, looking at e.g. Category:SM Prime (based in the Philippines) and Category:Central Pattana (Thailand), all members share the name and branding and most at least appear to have been built from scratch by the respective companies. I would oppose purging such categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, except maybe Category:Shopping malls by management company. It makes sense to categorize properties notable enough to have articles about them by their owner/manager. I'm not wedded to a category that brings all these management companies together, though and would be OK with deleting that one. The categories can still be categorized under businesses, organizations, real estate companies, retailers or what have you. Jahaza (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying my comments from the previous discussion, which still apply:
    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]
    That said, as has been noted above, some of the nominated categories are broader in inclusion than just management company, so in those cases, Purge - jc37 09:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:25, 14 November 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:Teleiodini stubs[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 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moved here from WP:TFD, where the rationale was All former members of this tribe have been moved to Litini. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:19, 14 November 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:BBC Light Programmes[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, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It looks weird, but it's more accurate as the name of the station is BBC Light Programme. Fuddle (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, the current name is not accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Makes sense and follows the existing category tree naming structure. Duplication of the word doesn't matter. If there were a band called "The Songs", we could have a category called "The Songs songs". MClay1 (talk) 01:48, 22 November 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:Database 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  1. The category consists only of one template (and has been this way for a while, since at least this discussion in 2020).
  2. The category name is confusing – it's not a topical category for templates related to databases, it is for templates that are a kind of database lookup. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:16, 14 November 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.

French governors of Egypt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#French governors of Egypt

Category:Members of the Karatia Zamindari family[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:Karatia Zamindari family. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, by default a family category contains the articles about the family members, there is no obvious reason to split this in two categories in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fine with Peterkingiron's suggestion to rename the target. I tagged that category too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 15 November 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:Revolutionaries from West Bengal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Category:Revolutionaries from West Bengal

Eton College 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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - these were all created and populated by Rathfelder in October. 2 of them have recently been been upmerged at cfd: 2022 November 3#Category:Royalty educated at Eton College and 2022 October 26#Category:Racehorse trainers educated at Eton College. The former explicitly included a request to consider it as a precedent for upmerging the others. Another precedent is 2022 October 27#Harrow School. Oculi (talk) 18:25, 14 November 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:Epic video games[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: Nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) silvia (inquire within) 15:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "epic" genre is not one typically associated with video games, and not a common descriptor that games are associated with (with the exception of The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and perhaps a few other outliers). As such this category is unlikely to be useful and any effort to populate it will result in disputes as we cannot reliably source the categorizing of many games as "epics". silvia (inquire within) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It isn't something a reliable source would use to describe a video game in most cases, at least not in the "Tolkien novel" sense. WPscatter t/c 18:07, 14 November 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:Jacopo Sansovino Buildings[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 17:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper form, like it is used in architecture categories.Mistico Dois (talk) 17:23, 14 November 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:Wikipedians interested in alphabetizing[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 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alphabetizing. If this were named "WikiProject Alphabetizing <members/participants>", I would speedy it as G8. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 14 November 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:WikiProject Materials science members[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 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Materials science does not exist. Both members are already in Category:Wikipedians interested in materials science * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From User talk:FuzzyMagma: Pppery thanks for letting me. I am working at a materials science institute and I was aiming to train volunteers and organise Edit-a-thon to write articles about materials science as part of making a WikiProject Materials science.Sorry i did not get a chance to start neither but hopefully i will be the beginning of next year. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this will only work after the project has seriously taken off. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, if the WikiProject is created in future, then this could be re-created then. But until such a time as the associated WikiProject is well established, no need for the members category. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now until the wikiproject materializes --Lenticel (talk) 07:17, 18 November 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.

Astronomical objects by source of name[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 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated subcategories
Category:Minor planets by source of name
Category:Minor planets named for animals
Category:Minor planets named for fictional characters
Category:Minor planets named for comics characters
Category:Minor planets named for fairy tale characters
Category:Minor planets named for film characters
Category:Minor planets named for literary characters
Category:Minor planets named for opera characters
Category:Minor planets named for television characters
Category:Minor planets named from literature
Category:Minor planets named for Middle-earth
Category:Minor planets named from mythology
Category:Minor planets named for people
Category:Minor planets named for biblical people
Category:Minor planets named for crew of STS-51-L
Category:Minor planets named for places
Category:Minor planets named for plants
Category:Minor planets named for rivers
Category:Minor planets with names of unknown origin
Category:Astronomical objects with Hawaiian names
Category:Astronomical objects named from mythology
Category:Astronomical objects named after people
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, those astronomical objects are categorized by details about their name rather than by their defining characteristics. Category:Astronomical nomenclature by nation and Category:Lists of astronomical objects named after people are not included in the nomination, as they are categories of lists of astronomical objects rather than astronomical objects themselves. Cambalachero (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is exactly WP:SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note prior discussions closed as keep at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 5#The entire Category:Minor planets by source of name tree and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Minor planets by source of name. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I got busy linking and tagging all the categories that I forgot to mention that. The 2019 nomination was withdrawn by the OP, and the 2018 uses faulty arguments for keep. Many of them say that it helps to search, but it doesn't. "Useful" categories would be planets by planet type, by type of star, by existence of atmosphere, by suspected habitability, by distance ranges from Earth, etc; but which use is there in grouping planets named after comic book characters? Another claims that the name is significant because the article discuss it, but that's not the way it works. The guideline means that we categorize things for what they are, not by aspects of its name. A Rose by any other name would still belong in "Garden plants" and "Rosoideae", but not in "flowers whose name starts with R". Cambalachero (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these objects have nothing substantively in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Seems useful to me. I'm not sure what the benefit is to deleting them. I understand that WP:SHAREDNAME is a thing but why is it important? The names of astrononomical objects seem to be important and defining. It's a well-made category tree and doesn't present any issues. I'm of the opinion that if you don't like a category tree, don't use it. Users who are into astronomy appear to have gone to great effort to create it, so they must find it useful. Deleting it wouldn't be a huge loss though as the content is available in articles and lists. I created a few of the categories but only to round out the missing pieces in the category tree; I didn't start it and I'm not attached to it. MClay1 (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Usefulness" is an ambiguous concept. E.g. it entirely escapes me how it can be "useful" to navigate from one minor planet named after a plant to another minor planet named after a completely different plant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not only useful for navigation. They provide useful collections of articles. You could get most of the same function from a list, but I prefer to simplicity of the category format. Usefulness will vary from user to user. I just don't see the point in taking something away from other users. This category tree is not problematic, just a bit niche. MClay1 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly what WP:SHAREDNAME says, these have nothing in common other than a shared name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SHAREDNAME says: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject". It was argued in previous CfDs that it is a defining characteristic, and I think that argument should be addressed this time before deleting. MClay1 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is the defining characteristic that they share apart from the name? O sure, they are minor planets. But the articles are already in other Minor planets categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already addressed that non-argument in an earlier message. The only argument advanced to justify it is that the article discussed the origin of the name somewhere, but that's not what being a "defining characteristic" means. Rule of thumb: let's say that the subject of the article changed its name to "Foo". Would we need to make a substantial rewrite to the article, other than move it and in the "reason of the name" section or passage? Cambalachero (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find these incredibly helpful in their current format. Please do not remove them. Darque Fyre (talk) 09:47, 17 November 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:Kickboxing stubs[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 17:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I mistakenly nominated Kickboxing biography stubs for merger to this parent as well as Martial arts biography stubs, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_2#Category:Hapkido_biography_stubs. The only contents are 9 templates and biographies, both of which are categorised under martial arts stubs, so this is not needed after all, and no merger is required. – Fayenatic London 09:40, 14 November 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:Assassinated Maltese journalists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Category:Assassinated Maltese journalists

Category:Cricket organizations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Category:Cricket organizations

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_14&oldid=1123228193"