Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24[edit]

Category:Events at Christmas[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 (manually) to Category:December events or appropriate subcategories by year. No compelling reason was offered to group articles in this manner. Regarding the concern about pollution, the only practical solution is to try to clearly define each category's scope (e.g. here) and purge articles that do not belong. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING for most entries. The contents should be selectively moved either to Category:December events (like Battle of Lake Okeechobee) or Category:Christmas (like Open Christmas Letter). Brandmeistertalk 22:55, 24 December 2018 (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:Aaron Yan[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 (Talk) 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization of just 4 albums doesn't need the double categorization of "album by artist" AND eponymous categorization of the artist as there is no other related article besides the albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:51, 24 December 2018 (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:A Haunted House (film series)[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 (Talk) 15:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two films don't make a series, and certainly doesn't need its own category. Possible upmerge of articles to this category's parents. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is empty. Did the nominator empty it before informing other editors? Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the creator of the category emptied it along with the religious-horror-comedy film category that was nominated below. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:17, 27 December 2018 (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:Wikipedians in Commerce, Texas[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 (Talk) 15:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 10K people reside in Commerce. Not notable. Beasting123 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the rationale in this CfD discussing a similarly situated category. VegaDark (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2018 (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:Populated places in Manitoulin Island[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) Natureium (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entirely unnecessary distinction between the district and the island that comprises most (but not all) of it. These two brand-new categories exist only to isolate the 59 communities that are on Manitoulin Island itself from the one that's on Goat Island and the two that are on Cockburn Island -- but that's not a meaningful or defining distinction for the purposes of the category system, because the communities are all still in the same "county" regardless of which of the three islands they're on. And even if there were a valid reason to keep them, communities are on islands, not "in" them. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Most large islands have their own categories, and there is no reason why the largest lake island in the world should not have its own category and subcategories. Places on an island are indeed "isolated" (in the original sense of "isolated") from places on a different island, and it would be hard to find a clearer example of a defining characteristic.--Mhockey (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Large islands have their own categories if they don't basically already have a one-to-one correspondence with an existing category for a geographic entity. For instance, we don't have categories to distinguish "in Prince Edward Island qua province" from "on Prince Edward Island qua island"; we don't have categories for "communities on the island of Great Britain", because the existing category trees for England, Scotland and Wales already completely cover that criterion off; we have categories for "populated places on [Greek island]" only when and where that island corresponds to a political region and not where it doesn't; and on and so forth. There's simply no value in using the category system to distinguish communities on the island from communities in the "county", when there are just three communities in the entire Manitoulin District that are on any island other than Manitoulin. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have separate articles for the island of Great Britain and the country, or for the island of Prince Edward Island and the province. But we do have separate articles for Manitoulin Island and Manitoulin District. Your argument seems to be pointing to a merger of those two articles. Why have separate articles but only one category?--Mhockey (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because "what qualifies for an article" and "what warrants a category" are two different things with very different rules. Everything that has an article does not always automatically need an eponymous category to match it, so "the district and the island have separate articles" is irrelevant to whether they need separate categories or not — what needs an article and what needs a category are two completely different sets of considerations. And incidentally, yes, we do have separate articles for Great Britain, which is just an island and not a country, and the United Kingdom, which is the actual country located mostly on the island of Great Britain but also partly on the islands of Ireland, the Shetlands, the Hebrides and the Orkneys. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if Goat Island and Cockburn Island would have been big enough they could have had their own category as an island. But since that is not the case, one category is enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No conceptual objection to distinction but it's not meaningful here. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Populated places in Manitoulin Island. As proposed, merging would remove all of these articles from the 'Manitoulin Island' category tree. We could consider upmerging, but surely not just a straight merge to one parent only. Upmerge (i.e. to all parents) Category:Communities in Manitoulin Island. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2019 (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:Yuen Long District SA[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 (Talk) 15:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2D, the main article was Yuen Long FC, thus Yuen Long FC is correct. No need to have a redundant cat tree . It may have potential for the defunct Yuen Long AA which folded in the 1980s, but not "Yuen Long District SA", the former name of the current Yuen Long FC. Matthew hk (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2018 (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:Religious horror comedy 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: merge to Category:Horror comedy films. A reminder to whomever emptied the category, please heed the discussion notice on any nominated category: "Please do not empty the category ... while the discussion is in progress." -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overexcessive 3-way intersection of religious-comedy-horror films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are films like this that exist. There's going to be more films.RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "religious" isn't even mentioned in either A Haunted House articles. I don't think anyone would categorize them as "religious films". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile these articles have been removed. I do not recall the names of the articles that were in here yesterday evening, but it does not really matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of an article on this genre shows we should not have such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and we may consider deleting as well other creations of the same contributor. Oh, I see these have been nominated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 26#Invented film genres. Place Clichy (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The test that a category has to meet is not "there are films like this that exist", or that "there are going to be more" — to warrant creation of a "genre films" category, "religious horror comedy" would have to be established and critically analyzed as an externally recognized genre of film that reliable sources have already assigned the films to for us. But that hasn't been demonstrated here at all. We don't make up our own genres by triple intersecting multiple genres just because a couple of genre-hopping films exist, we follow the genres that film critics have established as being standard recognized genres. Bearcat (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2019 (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:Eastern AA players[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D for using Eastern Sports Club. Since Eastern Sports Club's basketball team is also (equally?) notable, seem better to use "footballers" as suffix than "players" Matthew hk (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew hk (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2018 (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:Black superheroes[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. While the argument about the "precedent" of Category:Fictional black people has merit, in this case there is the additional precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 1#Category:Superheroes by race, which resulted in the deletion of this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was previously agreed upon to not sort heroes by ethnicity and just by nationality. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be beneficial if you can link to that agreement. Also, if that it the case, shouldn't Category:Superheroes by ethnicity or nationality changed to Category:Superheroes by nationality. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this CfD from 2007 concerning "Category:Black people" and the one linked from that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Category:Fictional black people, so there seems to be a precedent. Brandmeistertalk 23:01, 24 December 2018 (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.

Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (miscellaneous countries)[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/Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated for merging
more categories nominated for deleting
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously. This is a continuation of this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the nominator's rationale. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator seems to have decided that per city categories are to be eliminated from Wikipedia (see additional nomination below). I disagree with this point of view. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is definitely a misunderstanding. The only point here is that cities should have enough content to justify a category. Many cities do have enough content so they will not be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all religion by city should be the exception, not the norm. Few cities will have sufficient articles to warrant such categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all article with Roman Catholic to just Catholic to agree with our article Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2019 (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.

Jews and Judaism in country by city[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 as proposed with the expectation that Black Falcon's concerns will be addressed through the merge process, considering other categories as needed. ~ Rob13Talk 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a redundant category layer, these categories contain only 2 or 3 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the nominator's rationale. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having a per country category is a logical layer, and while in some cases there will not be many articles,although there will be many in others, that is not a reason to delete a category, especially one that is part of a tree. Claim of redundancy is not substantiated. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for informing me that this is a misunderstanding. :) However, I don't see the difference, and remain opposed. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you oppose this time? If we merge, the parent category will get one more subcategory. Is that a problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Religion by city should be the exception, not the norm. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All This middle layer is not aiding navigation in this case. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We do not need lots of cateogries that consist solely of one or two sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed, and consider on a case-by-case basis. Merging as proposed would inappropriately clutter the country-level categories and break links to a number of parent categories. For example, categories for Berlin and Hamburg would be out of place directly in Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany, which contains ~20 high-level topic categories (not just geographic subdivisions). Another example: upmerging Category:Jews and Judaism in China by city as proposed would break the connections to Category:Ethnic groups in China by city. While I agree with User:Marcocapelle that there are too many categories involved, I think this is a larger issue with the by-city categorization structure overall. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take care of these details when/if the categories are listed on WP:CFDWM. That is something I always do in case a manual dual or triple merge is needed, because issues like these are actually very common. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2019 (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/2018_December_24&oldid=1138411721"