Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

[edit]

Category:Satire anime and manga

[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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 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:Turkish drama television series in Pakistan

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely self-serving, pointless, non-notable, fan list-grade category. What's next, "Category:Fox drama TV series syndicated to CBS"? Category:Israeli cooking shows broadcasted in Tennessee? "Category:San Franciscan period dramas on Harvey Milk broadcasted in Uganda"? (WP:G5, CAT:NNSD) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The headnote adds the word "broadcast". Since Turkish is not widely spoken in Pakistan, I suspect these have been dubbed or subtitled in Urdu or Punjabi, etc. If so, would that be enough to merit a category? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country in either dubbed or subtitled form — and that's especially true in the 2010s, when a huge portion of the digital cable dial in most countries is taken up with foreign ethnic channels designed to appeal to expatriates who want to stay in touch with their home culture. So it's not a defining characteristic. There's extensive past precedent against categorizing shows on this basis, because that would lead to extreme category bloat as similar categories got created for every possible combination of originating and rebroadcasting countries. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 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:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory

[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) 12:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a major part of the biography of any of these people, except possibly George Ciccariello-Maher. Pharos (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category is for people for whom the criticism is a substantial part of their careers, not like here where most people are in the category because of a single comment, and holding a position that 95% of people would agree with. I would not be opposed to upmerging the category for anyone who does actually fulfill that criteria of it being a major part of their career.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 23 September 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:Eponymous scientific concepts

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overbroad, unhelpful, and non-defining. See discussion at Category talk:Eponymous scientific concepts. It's overbroad because a large fraction of scientific concepts (maybe a majority) are named after somebody, so the category ends up either being incomplete or huge. This could to some extent be addressed by subcategories but doing so would end up replicating most of our category tree of science, for no good purpose. It's unhelpful because usually what readers are going to want to know is not that it was named after someone, but who it was named after and why it was given that name. This is the sort of information that could be provided in a list, but not in a category. And it's non-defining because it's about the names of topics rather than about the topics themselves; see WP:NOTDICT. See also Category:Lists of things named after scientists (a much better category in my opinion, and one I am not proposing to change) and deleted category "Eponymous musical terms" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 29. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 22 September 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.

Medieval Ireland

[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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations with one merge target
more nominations with two merge targets
more nominations to delete decades
Nominator's rationale: merge years to centuries per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article. The tree of years in Ireland is a bit special because most content consists of articles like 1101 in Ireland. Categories that only contain an article like that require just one merge target, namely (in this example) Category:1101 in Europe; it does not require a dual merge to Category:12th century in Ireland because it is already in Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland. Note for closing admin: the categorization of articles like 1101 in Ireland is controlled by Template:Year in Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, IIRC, there was a much larger CfD for most of Europe months ago, and one of the criticisms there was to split up by country first. A few hundred at a time are better than thousands, and better than multiple country-specific nuances to geo-political self-identification.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment once again the nom is trying to do too much at once. I think we should keep decades in Ireland. Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced of the merits of merging national events to a continent-wide category, such as I deplore these thin thread categories. Might it be better to abolish the templates that create such trees? I suspect the nom has thought this out carefully, but I cannot support this nom without a clear assurance that the requisite checks have been done to ensure that no articles are left partly orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am largely on the same page as Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron - in that I don't understand why Ireland-specific cats alone are in scope, or why we are trying to do 25 different things at once here. There may be scope to declutter some of this area - for example by merging the contents of the year-specific cats (like Category:1180 in Ireland) to the decade-level cats (like Category:1180s in Ireland). But I have a problem with the targets proposed here (Category:12th century in Ireland and Category:1180 in Europe) for two reasons. The Ireland-specific target (Category:12th century in Ireland) will immediately become over-populated. And the Europe-level target (Category:1180 in Europe) seems too broad and loosely related to the subjects to represent an appropriate target (specifically I am unsure that we should be applying the modern boundaries and concepts of a European macro-region to 12th century subjects. I suspect that if you asked a 12th century Irish person about even the *concept* of Europe that they would look at you sideways. Yes, we ball-up these categories hierarchically today. But actually putting the sub-articles/etc in the macro-level cat? Not seeing it....) Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply on 1st criticism: in fact with this proposal there will not be over-population at all! If you check the nomination carefully, you will see that Category:12th century in Ireland will end up with about 10 articles directly in it, and so on for every next century. The centuries will in fact become very modestly populated. Note also that Ireland is not singled out this way: by far the most countries have century trees in the Middle Ages.
Reply on 2nd criticism: regarding Category:1180 in Europe as a merge target, while diffusion by continent may well be abolished (i.e. just have a Category:1180) that would require another nomination; however for the time being Category:1180 in Europe it is the immediate parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 23 September 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:Drug control law by country

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Unhelpful distinction. Only 5 categories, which can happily sit in Category:Drug control law. Not enough articles to populate a comprehensive category tree. Rathfelder (talk) 14:32, 22 September 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:Spiders described in the 1750s

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty spider decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfD here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE & WT:Spiders notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I created some of these "described by decades" categories for consistency with others that already existed, but I now wish I had gone the other way. I see no need for such categories, as per previous discussions. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 22 September 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:People associated with the Human Potential Movement

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, it concerns a non-defining characteristic for most people in this category. It is often not even mentioned at all in the article text. The few people for whom it was defining are already listed in the Human Potential Movement article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 22 September 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:Non-profit organizations based in Ontario 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Canada lines up with American rather than British spelling on the -ise/-ize thing — i.e. we organize things rather than organising them. Canadian English is a mix of "American" spelling in some contexts and "British" spelling in others, not invariably "British" across the board. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 26 September 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_September_22&oldid=871688262"