Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20[edit]

Category:Climate change modelling[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. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, since the topic includes modeling of the climate in general, and the category name should reflect that. prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Numerical climate and weather models. I agree that the topics in Category:Climate change modelling are not specific to climate change. But instead of having a Category:Climate modeling category sort of orphaned under the Category:Climate change category, it would be best to put these entries in the general Category:Numerical climate and weather models under Category:Climatology. --Mark viking (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First we should rename this cat correctly, the next step would be a merge with what you suggest, but i'm not sure if it is a good idea to merge weather forecast with climate modeling. prokaryotes (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2014 (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:HTC Corporation mobile phones[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. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match parent article. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appears reasonable. prokaryotes (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (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:Astronomy people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a semi-procedural renomination. This category was previously nominated for this renaming in a joint nomination with Category:Organized crime people. However, after two+ weeks, there had only been discussion about that category, and none about this one. Therefore I am renominating this one independently so that it can be discussed on its own merits, and for the same reason: matching the scheme at Category:People by association. The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • People associated with astronomy, sounds reasonable, makes more sense. prokaryotes (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Despite the general rule ASSOCIATED, this should not be deleted. – Fayenatic London 06:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Is there a problem calling them "astronomers"? I guess anything is better than "astronomy people." Two from one (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In spite of the many problems that plague People associated with... categories, that naming convention is better than Foo people. A Renaissance-era patron of the arts could be described as a person associated with sculpture, but it is meaningless to call them a sculpture person. The same principle applies in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2014 (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:Cultural history journals[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. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary split of Category:History journals. Very few journals will clearly fall into this category unequivocally as much of history is about culture anyway. So if we use a very strict definition, then this will remain a very small category, whereas if we use a more liberal definition, almost all journals in the history journal cat would fall into this cat, too. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't you upmerge to both parents, cultural journals and history journals? -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, the sole journal in the cat would indeed need to go into both cats you mention. However, note that this cat originally also contained the category "history of philosophy journals", which I don't think belongs in the "cultural journals" cat at all (and not in cultural history journals either, which is why I removed it before opening this CfD). If in the meantime other journals would be categorized here, I'd rather decide on a case-by-case basis on whether or not those articles would also need to go into "cultural journals" or not. --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate with the journals above. I do not contest that there is overlap between the academic disciplines of cultural and historical studies, but I do not feel that this overlap justifies upmerging this category any more than it justifies upmerging Category:Cultural history to Category:Culture and Category:History. In spite of the overlap, cultural history is recognized as a distinct subject of popular and academic interest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far as I see, about 90% of all "History journals" would then have to go into this subcat. Not very useful... (BTW, the intersection that you produced above assumes that all entries have been categorized correctly...) --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (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:Former Telugu Desam Party politicians[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A politician who leaves a political party may return to it later. There is no such category at global level also.The category is misleading.Should be deleted. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added subsequently:
  • Merge to Category:Telugu Desam Party politicians. Categories reflect past or present characteristics of their subjects, and not necessarily current status; as a result, we typically do not split categories based on current/former status. A Telugu Desam Party politician who left the party still was, at one time, a Telugu Desam Party politician and should be categorized as such. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We do not like "former" categories. Politicians should be categorized by their party, even after they leave, even for another party or by death. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The current consensus is that only religions get former categories. Too many people become "former" to political parties because they disband, for this to be defining. There are also the people who retire from politics, and then sort of identify with a new party later on, but not in a way that if that was all they did they would even be categorized by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.There are a few more such categories. Like Category:Former Indian National Congress politicians,Category:Former Bharatiya Janata Party politicians and Category:Former Telangana Rashtra Samithi politicians created by the same user.Can the closing administrator please apply the decision of this discussion to those too. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since all of these categories were created by the same user at (roughly) the same time, I have added them to this nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2014 (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 characters introduced in 1599[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 per WP:SMALLCAT as part a series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there are very few entries. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 20 April 2014 (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:1985 German television series debuts[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there is only one entry. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:44, 20 April 2014 (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 Muay Thai practitioners[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there are very few entries. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:44, 20 April 2014 (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 practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsu[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. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there are very few entries. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (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 karateka[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there is only one entry. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (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:2002 Dutch television series debuts[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there is only one entry. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (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 set in the 2080s[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 as part of the structure in Category:Works set in the future . There is a structure for decades and centuries, and I do not see sufficient consensus to set up something intermediate for 50 years. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely esoteric category for which there is only one entry. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This appears to be part of a series within Category:Television series set in the 21st century. Although the category currently contains only one article, it does have potential for growth. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We might merge this and siblings into a new Category:Television series set in the late 21st century, "late" being defined as after 2050. The point is that they are all set in the distant future; exactly how far ahead is probably almost random. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this shows the problem with categorizing fictional works by setting. If I sit down today and write a fictional work set in 2001, does it really belong in the same category as 2001 a Space Odyssey? It seems more defining if we set it in the future or the past, than what year, at least when things are set in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This may not be a problem with television series (except Doctor Who, The Time Tunnel, and, to a lesser extent, the Star Trek franchise, but many fictional works are set in multiple times, even when the relationship to current chronology can be established. I'm not sure where the appropriate discussion forum is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2014 (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:Escape Velocity[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since there are multiple meanings of "Escape Velocity", parenthetical disambiguation is needed to clearly convey the category's scope. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2014 (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:2011 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship[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: moved. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship and the main articles for each year's category—e.g., 2011 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. BDD (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to an appropriate (up)merger. That would meet my concerns. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; each has three articles and three parents, so it's slightly neater to keep these "final rung of the ladder" categories, even though they are small. The other parents do not seem to hold multiple articles for the initial and final rounds of each competition, i.e. wherever there are multiple articles for a competition then categories have been diffused down to this level. If not retained, then a triple upmerge to all parents would be needed. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —  dainomite   20:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all renaming. NickSt (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2014 (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:Japanese-language television programming[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. It may be more fruitful to pursue a larger discussion about such categories in mostly monolingual countries. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is out of scope. All television in Japan is by definition Japanse-language, and there are hundreds of articles on this project that fulfill this criteria that are in other categories already that this one will never be of any actual use, so it effectively duplicates Category:Television in Japan. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I think that the nomination raises a good point, but is there any reason to single out this category from most of the rest of Category:Television programming by language. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was created within the past 24 hours of the nomination rather than being an established category. Also, homogeneity of the Japanese population means ~99% of all programming is in Japanese, unlike other nations throughout the world which may have original programming in languages which are not the majority.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's good enough for me... I think that this discussion might prove to be a good test case for the rest of the category tree. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What was in this category? Impossible to tell as it is now empty. Hmains (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples included Minna no Uta and Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless or whether or not "all television in Japan is by definition Japanese-language" - a statement which is very much {{citationneeded}}, it should be noted - the fact of the matter is that Category:Television programming by language is an established, and useful to the reader, category tree. I will also note that the nominator emptied the category out of process beforeafter nominating it here. Ryulong, you know better than that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have restored to the category the articles that were in it at the time of nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This category should not be populated by individual articles but rather general categories regarding television in Japan, like Category:Japanese television series by genre. I've populated the category with subcategories and removed the articles, again, because there is no way that anyone in their right mind is going to use a category that has hundreds if not thousands of pages in it. If this is going to be kept, it should be host to subcategories only, rather than arbitrarily chosen articles as Dwaynewest had initially populated it with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is This is a natural part of the category structure found in Category:Television programming by language which is about 'the programs'. There is no reason go delete this subcategory or any other subcategory of Category:Television programming by language since division by language is a natural media division. It is also true that this category can and should include Japanese language programming articles from any country, not just Japan. Hmains (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the category is valid, then it is going to be extremely unwieldy. I removed several pages from the category in the first place because the individual in question, while they fit the criteria of the category, it is better suited to be a parent category to one of the many categories they are already a part of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 4 subcats now in this category look perfectly good if they cover programming in the Japanese language that is known to exist. These are all from Japan but when/if we find such programming from other countries (not just exports of Japan origin) they can go here too. Might you want to now withdraw your deletion nomination? Hmains (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by language categories are useful in some cases but not all. We generally only do by language categories when they differ from by nationality, either because they are not in the dominant language, or because the nation lacks a dominant language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the majority of Japanese television series are in the Japanese language does not preclude the possibility of Japanese-language television series being produced outside of Japan as well — many "foreign language" broadcasters in Canada and the United States produce at least a daily newscast of their own, for instance — so this category is in no sense restricted only to television series produced in Japan just because they're the only things in here right now. So it doesn't duplicate Category:Television in Japan, because nothing precludes television programs from outside of Japan being added here as well. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without prejudice to immediate re-creation if at least one broadcaster outside Japan makes a notable programme in Japanese. Until we have an article on such a programme in English wikipedia, this is pointless category clutter. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bushranger and Hmains. This category is a natural fork of Category:Television programming by language. —  dainomite   20:49, 28 May 2014 (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/2014_April_20&oldid=1083678038"