Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25
February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Category:University and college academics in the United States[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is confusing as I thought that this category was about academics at colleges and universities in the united states. Instead this is a category about academic programs. Rename is to make that clearer Mason (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; perhaps we should always avoid "academics" per MOS:COMMONALITY – the American and the British uses of the term alike. That might include in most of the article titles here. Ham II (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2024 (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:Licensed board 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: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories that mean the same thing. Based on a work means it uses a licensed brand. Mika1h (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2024 (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:Malaysian diaspora by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 5#Category:Malaysian diaspora by country

Category:Golden Reel Awards (Motion Picture Sound Editors)[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B or WP:C2D, unnecessary disambiguation Yeeno (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2024 (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:Dutch atheist writers[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would be a piecemeal change. Category:Atheist writers has nine national subcategories, two of which only contain one name each (this one and Category:Austrian atheist writers) and two of which only contain two (Category:Albanian atheist writers and Category:Colombian atheist writers). Three list four names each (Category:French atheist writers, Category:German atheist writers, Category:Russian atheist writers; only two list more than a dozen each (Category:American atheist writers and Category:English atheist writers). One could argue that this is an under-used category; personally, I have no issue with giving categories time to be populated. My main point is that the approach needs to be consistent. — scribblingwoman 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How much time do you think is reasonable? This category was created in 2019. I chose the nom targets for this page based on the properties of the single page in the category. @Scribblingwoman, do you have a solution for how to manage the current tree? Mason (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the category to some articles about Dutch atheist writers listed elsewhere in Wikipedia. I hope that it is acceptable to edit while this discussion is going on. At any rate, there are six items in the category now, after a few minutes work. — scribblingwoman 03:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency it may be helpful to add some siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there guidelines anywhere about the minimum size for categories? If not, we should try at least to be consistent with general practice. We have here a category with two well-populated sub-categories, some thinly populated, and some barely populated. But is it general practice to weed small subcategories when they are consistent in structure and intent with larger ones, as is the case here? At the very least, if this one is merged than Category:Austrian atheist writers should also be merged as it also contains only one article. Again, I see no difficulty with editors creating a scaffolding for later editors to fill in. I don't understand the conclusion that if something is not fleshed out relatively quickly, it must be removed. Something can be notable without having many editors working on it. (For the record, I have not worked on atheist writers.) — scribblingwoman 02:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:50, 26 February 2024 (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 about taxi drivers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 5#Category:Works about taxi drivers

Category:Entertainment company founders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 5#Category:Entertainment company founders

Category:Theatre company founders[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: dual merge to Category:Entertainment company founders and Category:Theatre managers and producers with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2024 (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 social activists[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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/vague. The potential parent category Category:Social activists just redirects to Category:Activists Mason (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2024 (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:20th-century American activists[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There have been several CFDs that have resulted in deletion [1] [2]. The intersection between activist and century isn't defining by itself. Mason (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, activist is a too modern "occupation" to be distinguished by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many activists from prior centuries. Checking WP:PET for American activists‎ with 20th-century American people, there are 3982 results in depth 2. There are also 1391 results for 19th-century American people. Flurrious (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "too modern" I meant there aren't many ancient, medieval or early modern activists around. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the excessive-use of "by century" categorization is very evident here. I agree that the intersection of activist and century is non-defining.--User:Namiba 17:17, 28 February 2024 (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:JFK-UFO conspiracy theories[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category that corresponds to a now-deleted article. Most of the entries do not even mention Kennedy. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2024 (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:Brunswick News publications[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 with a redirect. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't exist as it stands, no disagreement on redirecting, and a merge is needed since Mason appears to have removed some members from the target when repopulating. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brunswick News no longer exists. All of its papers are now the property of Postmedia Network, and this category's contents have therefore been merged into Category:Postmedia Network publications. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the very least this should be redirected not-deleted. Mason (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some reason, nominator emptied this category before starting a discussion here at CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the categories. @ViperSnake151, please don't remove empty the category before nominating. It is extremely unhelpful. Mason (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect) per nom. I was the original creator here, back when Brunswick News was the owner, but nominator is entirely correct that the situation has changed — and we don't retain historic categories for former owners of newspapers, we just categorize them for their current owner, so this category is no longer useful or relevant anymore. That said, it is also not standard practice to empty an outdated category in advance of its deletion — the category needs to stay on the pages until it is deleted. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat and ViperSnake151: Am I correct that you want to merge the category (leaving a redirect) to Category:Postmedia Network publications? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (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:Collections of the National Gallery, London[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:Paintings in the National Gallery, London. Noting for the record that there is no bot which auto-tags nominations (and there would probably be issues with creating one, because it wouldn't trigger watchlist notifications). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All 300-odd items with articles in the NG collection are paintings, with I think one exception -The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist, a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci. I imagine the easiest way to fill the bad gap in "Paintings by collection" is to rename, then re-establish "Collections of the National Gallery, London" with a paintings sub-cat & the Leonardo (and anything else that turns up). Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine with "in" - singular collection though - these plurals are a menace we should get rid of everywhere. Sorry, late night nom, & spent 20 minutes trying to understand the instructions, which seem to have got still less clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After 24 hrs, the category does not yet have a notice & link to here. This should happen automatically, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (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:North Alabama Lions football 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: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects and is not a useful layer for navigation. Let'srun (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2024 (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/2024_February_26&oldid=1214239214"