Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[edit]

Category:Female–female vocal duets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Category:Female–female vocal duets

Category:Russian and Soviet theatre directors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Category:Russian and Soviet theatre directors

Category:Moth species[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 16:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Multiple reasons:
  • Very partially implemented category (there's at the moment 49 articles in there while it actually applies to oh, about 70000-80000 or so articles), that is
  • effectively redundant to other parts of the moth categorization structure (e.g. the entire "moths described in year" category tree, which is a species-of-moth-specific tree), and
  • which has been accumulating about as many articles that don't actually belong in there (lists of moth genera are not, by any reasonable definition, moth species) as actually correctly-categorized articles, and
  • which unlike the rest of the Moth taxa by rank categories is not a continuation of the wider "x taxa by rank" tree: there's no such thing as a Category:Insect species or Category:Arthropod species or Category:Protostome species or even Category:Animal species; and which also does not have a butterfly counterpart. AddWittyNameHere 09:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We typically categorize by some sort of taxonomic group, instead of keeping all species in the same category. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 15 September 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:Danish municipality 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: rename to Category:Wikipedia categories named after municipalities of Denmark and reparent. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The lead articles are in the parent, and the categories for each municipality would normally be at that level too. The other sub-cats of Municipalities of Denmark are already separated to the top of the page by special lead characters such as +, so there will be no confusion between local sub-cats and generic sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 7 September 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:Mayors of City of San Marino[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 16:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one member page, so merge for now as WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 06:30, 7 September 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:American SBNRs[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 17:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creator claims that this category refers to American people who are "spiritual but not religious", and added to it one constituent, George Lopez. There is no evidence that the meaning of "SBNR" will be understood as a noun by anyone other the creator of the category, and for many potential constituents including Lopez, this will not be a defining characteristic. The creator of the category seems to be determined to create a similar category to Category:Irreligious theists and Category:Religiously unaffiliated Americans, which they were previously unsuccessful in creating. General Ization Talk 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does the category "Spiritual but not religious people from the United States" sound as an alternative? We could use that instead. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because once again it calls for a determination by the editor placing a page in the category as to who and/or what is spiritual and/or religious, and in neither of the (now two) additions you made to the category is this determination evidently based on any reliable source nor defining of the article's subject. General Ization Talk 03:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. It could be defining, hypothetically, for chairs of associations of spiritual non-religious people or people writing books about spiritual non-religiousness. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic for most (or all) of the non-religious folks who are spiritual, and even for those who it is a prominent trait, we can easily cover this within the prose instead. The use of a vague acronym doesn't help either by presuming all readers will know what it stands for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 8 September 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:Coal miner organizers[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 and recategorise the pages somehow. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there does not seem much difference between "organizers" and "activists". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creating a new subcategory for leaders can be done regardless of the outcome of this merge discussion. For now, Peterkingiron and I are agreeing on the redundancy of one of the two nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 7 September 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:Works based on real people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Category:Works based on real people

Category:Milliners[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: reverse merge. The preferences in this discussion were evenly balanced, so this close is swayed by the use of "milliner" in Hatmaking#Milliners and as a qualifier in several biographical article names. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Milliner is a redirect to Hatmaking. I cant detect a distinction between the two terms, other than that milliner seems to be used more for people and Category:Hat makers includes some companies. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Category:Hat makers, although I think sometimes "milliners" are just the retailers, but mostly they make/made them too. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge (leaving cat-redirect - They are much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverse merge has been proposed, but Category:Hat makers was not tagged. Done now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:43, 7 September 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:Nippon Professional Baseball infobox 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: soft merge to Category:Baseball infobox templates and Category:Nippon Professional Baseball templates. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article. Move the article into both parent categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 7 September 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:Yazlovets[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. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category level with just the eponymous article and a subcategory. We hardly ever have categories for villages anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Add also other pages to category. Yazlovets has a great history, some articles should be written or translated from Ukrainian or Polish Wikipedia. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A village of 600 people does not usually need a category. The normal minimum is 5 items, which this has not reached. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 15 September 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 child killers[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 and purge as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even though most people would be able to tell what this category means, its parent category Category:Murderers of children has no ambiguity whatsoever in definition and cannot be mistaken for killers who happen to be minors. most It would also have better consistency with its parent category's name. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice now that the category has been listed at WP:CFDS in parallel. Well surely it will lead to some outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems to me there are content in the category who are child killers but not child murderers. Considering the in-universe morality system, and what constitutes murder versus other forms of killing, there should be a split between fictional murderers of children and fictional killers of children. A (not serial killer) monster hunts and kills children, but it isn't murder though. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Use "killers" or "murderers"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom To match the parent category. And non-sentient characters should probably not be in a category for killers. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 15 September 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_September_7&oldid=1110502731"