Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9

Category:People from Ortonville, Minnesota

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 after all now that it has been more fully populated. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Ortonville, Minnesota to Category:Two parent county categories

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries (one of which I just added). The town has a population of 1,900 so this is not likely to be expanded. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree-Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Koavf and RFD: I'm not sure whether a merge to the second county category is needed. Article Ortonville only mentions the first county. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is - Now has six members so Merge no longer required... GrahamHardy (talk) 23:05, 28 May 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:Projects associated with apartheid

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:Apartheid in South Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Projects associated with apartheid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague, with only two members. What is a "project"? An organized activist movement? A government initiative? It is confusing. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/upmerge. This is not not part of a projects-associated-with category tree. DexDor^(talk) 21:12, 9 May 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:Insult Comedy

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. There is a list in the page insult comedy. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Insult Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and unspecified category, only entry currently is the video game review series Zero Punctuation, which uses the form on insult comedy, but isn't solely devoted to the form. Also WP:OVERCAT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Soetermans -- a way too overly broad and subjective category, which can include a great many other comedians who use/have used/used insults in their routines but would not define themselves as "insult comedians", per se. Quis separabit? 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since the nomination the creator of the category User:Omanyd has added multiple other articles to the category. It might be useful if they would directly comment here on the delete nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 16 May 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:Video games about military personnel

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Video games about military personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and very vague category: video games about military personnel? The subcategory is category: Sniper video games, but they feature the role or function of a sniper in a video game, they're not necesarilly about the sniper. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete typical of the "about" categories: how much about military personnel must the video game be for inclusion? how is that objectively defined? and what reliable sources tell us its at least that much about the defining topic into which it is being categorized? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 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:Megarian school

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. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Megarian school to parent categories

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it just contains the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Category:Megarian philosophers, which "is for the philosophers of the Megarian school, which developed the philosophy of Euclid of Megara, and which flourished in the 4th century BC". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already mentioned in the header of Category:Megarian philosophers so a merge here is not required per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "see also" link to that category in the article. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 29 May 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.

Law by century

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. ℯ xplicit 06:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:11th century BC in law
Propose delete Category:10th century BC in law
Propose delete Category:9th century BC in law
Propose delete Category:8th century BC in law
Propose delete Category:11th-century BC crimes
Propose delete Category:10th-century BC crimes
Propose delete Category:9th-century BC crimes
Propose delete Category:8th-century BC crimes

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is too ancient history to populate with articles about law and crimes. These categories merely contain (subcats with) biographies of people, who are in the people by century category tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rationale would also apply to the sub-categories, namely 11th, 10th, 9th and Category:8th-century BC murder victims. If you are not nominating those, why take out their parent categories for "crimes"? I agree that the "law" categories add little in terms of navigation, but the 9th-century crimes category also contains the murderers Jehu and Zimri (king), and I wouldn't be surprised if there was scope to add more e.g. from Egyptian, Persian and Chinese history. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The murder victims categories are less of a problem because they are supposed to contain biographies (they could be upmerged as too small, at most). The 11th-8th century law categories don't contain any topic articles about law and the corresponding crimes categories don't contain any articles about crimes. The 'oldest' crimes article in WP probably is Assassination of Julius Caesar, an event that dates 1st century BC. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Just as there is a hierarchy for Category:Murder victims by century, we could also create a century hierarchy for Category:Murderers, e.g. Category:9th-century BC murderers; this would avoid what you see as a problem, in categorising biographies directly in Category:9th-century BC crimes. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have only just read your own similar proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_12#Medieval_crimes – and I see that the hierarchy for ancient murder victims was your own work, which I commend. Why not add "murderers" this far back too? – Fayenatic London 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning that initially indeed, but then found the amount of ancient murderers was too little for now. But of course no objection against creating them if there are much more ancient murderers that weren't in these crimes by century tree yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Law categories are not needed, I still see Crimes as a valid parent over Murder victims (and Murderers). – Fayenatic London 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- These are unnecessary category levels, with no prospect of further population. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a follow-up nomination for all remaining ancient crimes categories can be found here. This next nomination does not include law categories however, since those are needed starting in the 7th century BC as a container for treaties categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there is also a hierarchy Category:Treaties by century, why would you keep e.g. Category:7th century BC in law as a parent for treaties, but not for crimes? – Fayenatic London 17:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because a treaty is a law, while a person (a biography article) isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 29 May 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.