Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23[edit]

Category:Indian antihero films[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. Timrollpickering 10:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Several previous CdDs have formed a consensus against antihero categories in general, which would extend to daughter categories such as this one. As an aside, there's been a lot of good-faith splitting of Indian categories - films and occupations in particular - which could do eyeballs from someone familiar with CfD consensus on these kinds of things. Le Deluge (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (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:Planetary systems with eight confirmed planets[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. Timrollpickering 10:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A trivial and useless category. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Is this for our solar system? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is part of the supercategory Category:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets. In this case, WP:ARBITRARYCAT does not apply, as also exist categories Category:Planetary systems with one confirmed planet, up to Category:Planetary systems with seven confirmed planets. It could be argumented that WP:SMALLCAT may apply, as so far only one planetary system with eight planets is known (the Solar System). However, it is explicitly stated that WP:SMALLCAT is used «unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme» (in this case, the sub-categorization scheme is the planetary system by number of planets). Additionally, WP:SMALLCAT states explicitly that small categories are acceptable when «a category which does have realistic potential for growth». In this case, a category as the one under discussion has a real potential for growth: last 22nd February, NASA announced the third planetary system with seven planets discovered. With no doubt, in few months (at most one or two years) probably more planetary systems with eight planets will be discovered (in fact, HD 10180 might be soon the first confirmed planetary system with nine planets, as it has currently seven confirmed, and two candidates under research). As a Wikipedia editor, I strongly agree to remove nonsensical categories, but this is not the case, it makes quite a lot sense when you know the context of the explosion in planetary discovery we are living in the last years. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nom that the number of confirmed planets is a pretty trivial characteristic. Sibling categories should be deleted for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2017 (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:Organisations based in Brazil[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: Option 2 - Organisations. Timrollpickering 10:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option 1 - Organisations to Organizations
Option 2 - "Organizations" to "Organisations"

Rationale: Since these categories have the same national scope, they should be named consistantly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 2 – follow the head category Category:Organisations based in Brazil. Been there since 2006. Oculi (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a point of reference, the government of Brazil's English-language website doesn't seem to have an obvious preference for one or the other spelling (organization gets 35 hits, whilst organisation gets 32; many of both are used in proper nouns and/or citations from other sources and may not indicate a preference but merely repetition of some original spelling). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 As there seems to be no obvious preference in Brazil, a non-English speaking nation, it makes sense to follow the original tree, started at Category:Organisations based in Brazil in a similar way as we would per WP:RETAIN. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2017 (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:May Coup (Poland)[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_20#Category:May_Coup_(Poland). – Fayenatic London 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the eponymous article and a subcat. The article is displayed as the main article in the header of the subcat so all of it is completely interlinked already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2017 (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.

AFL player 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 27 for discussion on the second merge target. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to keep the AFL stuff separate. These players are as much a part of the history of the NFL teams as more modern players. Also see discussion here. Notable things we aren't discussing here include merging categories associated with the same team before and after a name change and the Los Angeles Chargers business, which is going to be a mess because the name was used twice with a great amount of history between the usages. ~ Rob13Talk 07:13, 23 February 2017 (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.

Periods in history[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 27 seeking clearer consensus on which way to merge. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, as the scope of each of these categories completely overlaps with one of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I agree in principle, but I do not believe that "Fact is that we categorize by polity" is true. Look at Category:History of the United States by period: I see a lot of categories looking like Category:History of the United States (1980–91)‎ (which pretty much overlaps with Category:1980s in the United States...). Granted, USA has pretty much one polity, barring some Colonial era footnote-stuff, so it needs child categories, but here you go. We could of course say that it is polity on the top level, and date ranges as child categories (through we not just use the centuries and decades/years in a Foo country then), but while again, it sounds like a sound principle, is it indeed written down anywhere? Looking at UK history, I also see no division by polity, just stuff like modern/medieval and eras, then going into decades. Category:Late Modern France seems to match the polity division, barring some minor eras, etc. So does Category:Modern history of Germany. As you will note, I am not objecting - much - but it would be good to write down this rule/logic somewhere, then proceed on standardizing as much as we can. Last thing to note: long ago when I was active in writing history of Poland articles, I stressed strongly the need to make sure people understand the difference between a former polity article (which should be structured just like that for modern polity - with sections on economy, administration, and history) and history of said former polity/era; note in particular that for example a History of Poland (1918-1939) (or whatever it redirects to) should be a section/child for Second Polish Republic (entity which existed in 1918-1939). I thought it would be logical to apply this division to categories, too, alas I see your point that in the category the overlap is much bigger. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other. These two categories cover the same thing. I have no opinion on which form is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2017 (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/2017_February_23&oldid=1138410736"