Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Companies based in Erode[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, also to Category:Erode. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erode is one of the major business centres in India, and there are many budding companies that are based out of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueljjohn (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 June 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:Fictional child assassins[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently only one article in category, and I would argue that it doesn't even apply for it. Not enough room for expansion. JDDJS (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. It's Hit-Girl, and while she does kill a lot of people, she doesn't get paid to do it nor is she assigned people to kill nor are any of them political figures. JDDJS (talk) 06:03, 11 June 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:Fictional characters convicted of hate crimes[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now there's only one article in this category. I don't really think that there is much room for growth for this category. JDDJS (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is unlikely to be a defining characteristic, and will only ever contain a handful of pages. The number of characters to whom this category would apply and are notable enough to have their own article will be small. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NONDEF; these characters are products of imagination and not every human category needs to be mirrored in the fictional world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 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:Fictional organizations designated as hate groups[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since fictional organizations are very rarely actually referred to by hate groups, it becomes too subjective what qualifies for this category. JDDJS (talk) 15:22, 3 June 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:Cult-related books[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 Category:Cult-related books as nominated, Category:Cult-related media to Category:Media about cults. "Category:Media about Foo" is not common, but not impossible to find, either. It may be worth discussing categories using such naming conventions at a later time, but discussion leans in support of employing it here. ℯxplicit 05:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename ambiguous category title: is this books by cults, or books about cults? It appears to be the latter, so let's name the category accordingly. Similarly for media. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The first renaming is a better description and more specific of the cat's members. The second renaming should be invoked as well, but it would be better as Category:Media about cults, as I don't think popular culture is a synonym for media. --Mark viking (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first change and Mark viking's suggested second change. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the second rename: we hardly have any category "Media about" and a huge tree under Category:Topics in popular culture while I think the meaning is about the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree that the first renaming is a better description. For the second one--that is a bit ambiguous when I think of what would be in that category. For an example--the song Jonestown by Concrete Blonde would fit under Cults in Popular Culture. But a documentary such as Jonestown: Paradise Lost would fit under media, or better, Films about Cults, not Cults in Popular Culture. Books about Cults is a good category.--Jaldous1 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as an aside, there's also cult film. This can easily cause confusion: is a film with an obsessive fandom or a film about a religious cult? It might be good to be explicit when naming categories where cults and films may intersect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and the later comments. Judging from the 'cult film' discussion above, it looks like we are effectively reducing ambiguity. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:51, 9 July 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:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary qualifier as Wiki does not have a category for "Non-military units and formations of the Waffen-SS" K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Waffen-SS was a military outfit, so adding "Military" for their units is redundant. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Procedural oppose The presence of identically named neighbours for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe suggests that if this really is an issue, it doesn't exist solely for this one category, but potentially hundreds of categories in the tree Category:Military units and formations. Rename them all, or none at all, that is now a naming convention works. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE; CU-blocked account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to @K.e.coffman and Bishonen: The Category:Military units and formations hierarchy mostly uses the word "military"; the exceptions use a more specific term e.g. "Airborne". Therefore, if "military" was not used on a "units and formations" category in this tree, it could ordinarily be speedily added under WP:C2C. If the SS is counted as paramilitary rather than military, this might be a reason to remove the word "military". However, Bishonen's statement that the SS "was a military outfit" seems to be an argument for keeping the word "military" in common with the rest of the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - per the parent Category:Military units and formations, the naming convention is indeed to use the same wording for subcats (and I am not CU-blocked). Oculi (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Waffen-SS was the military wing of the Nazi party. It did not have naval or Luftwaffe wings, not did it have non-military units or formations. This make "military" redundant. It is as pointless as having "Military units and formation of the British Army", because they are by definition military. I am certainly not suggesting renaming the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 4 June 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:Christopher Memminger[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article, Christopher Memminger; unlikely to gain more. Trivialist (talk) 02:54, 3 June 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:Harris Flanagin[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains two articles, unlikely to gain more. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 3 June 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:God Eater (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: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of having a CfD before it was moved, which nobody should oppose as there is nothing to distinguish it from. But other than that, I support this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_3&oldid=871691411"