Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Category:Automatically maintained portals with listed maintainers[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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as an automatically maintained portal. This is a misleading category Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An Automatically maintained portal is a one page portal with trancluded content. If a maintainer is listed, the portal is placed in this category. --Auric talk 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have proven that no portal is automatically maintained. There are portals that automatically generate errors. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that "someone has said they will watch" sounds utterly vague. Do they really watch? What if that someone decides to quit Wikipedia editing? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these categories are an important part of managing and maintaining portals and directing the efforts of the WikiProject. WaggersTALK 08:56, 1 May 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:Portals with titles not starting with a proper noun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Category:Portals with titles not starting with a proper noun

Category:Non-standard portal pages[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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a "standard" portal page. These just belong in Category:All portals (which is comprehensive) and other specific categories under Category:Portals (which is way way out of date) Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A "Standard" portal page is a one-page or automatically created portal. This category is largely for portals that have an unusual layout, like Portal:Evangelical Christianity. --Auric talk 14:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category is used so that if someone does a maintenance run for "standard" portals, they don't touch these "non-standard" portals which could be negatively affected if "painted with the same brush". Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of maintenance run? Can you point to when this happened for the last time? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 12 April 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:Historical Portal pages[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. MER-C 14:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much clearer more accurate name. Also gets the name to start with Portal like others in this category tree Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word "project" is not misleading as the pages in this category (at least those I've checked) are talk pages containing {{WikiProject Portals|historical=y}}. DexDor (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's for portal project pages not portals. That is what is misleading about the name. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. !vote struck. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:39, 18 April 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:All portals with triaged subpages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:All portals with triaged subpages

Category:Formerly curated portals that are presently automated[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: speedy delete (G7). MER-C 10:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A more honest and shorter name for this useful category. Curated suggests these pages were maintained when many were not maintained at all. Starting with the word Portals like most Category:Portal pages helps us find the cat easier Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the idea but the proposed new name is misleading too. "Automated" doesn't necessarily mean "single page" - several pages use the new automation based templates but still use subpages (as opposed to navboxes or inline lists of articles) to manage the list of selected articles etc. It's certainly my preferred approach to list selected articles on a subpage rather than on the main portal page as it makes maintenance of the list much easier, so most of the portals I look after are automated but not single-page. WaggersTALK 09:01, 1 May 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:2000 Tennis Masters Cup[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:2000 Tennis Masters Cup

Category:Comicbooks storylines used for film adaptations[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of existing Category:Comics adapted into films, note that Category:Comic books is a redirect to Category:Comics Le Deluge (talk) 20:35, 9 April 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:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee[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) DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Userfied WikiProject should not have a Project-space category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Why have such an amazing ly narrow Wikiproject? Population: 34,726 means at best a handful of oeople who might be interested. Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 9 April 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:Findlay Prep alumni[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Findlay Prep is not a school. It is a basketball team composed of high schoolers. Babymissfortune 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While not technically a high school, it competes in regular high school athletics unlike AAU teams and its players are the only students that are enrolled in the Henderson International School, so Findlay and Henderson International are more or less the same. Maybe move it out of High school alumni of Nevada. I would argue that given the success of Findlay's former players it is defining enough to merit its own category. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to players - I know nothing about this but based on the article, it appears notable enough to keep the category. But the fact that it has been designated "non-scholastic" makes me think we should treat this as a pure sports team rather than a school, so "players" would be more appropriate than "alumni".Le Deluge (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it’s a basketball factory but the kids study and get valid diplomas like any other high school. And there are lots of notable alumni with room for the category to grow. Opposed to adding “players” as it’s unnecessary and we don’t want to set the precedent that players on high school teams have athletic participation categories. Not opposed to folding into “Henderson School alumni” if that exists. Rikster2 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have to be a member of the Findlay Prep basketball team to attend Henderson International, and Findlay Prep is the more widely known of the 2 entities, so I believe keeping the title as it currently is would be the best course of action here. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 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:Jewish critics of Islam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 4#Category:Jewish critics of Islam

Category:Luxdorph family[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 unless and until more articles are created about family members. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT: low probability of growing beyond a single member. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Created by the same editor as this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now A grandfather/grandson that are already linked, and two pre-existing houses that were lived in the family for a time but don't seem defined by it. No objection to recreating later if we ever get up to 5 or so family member articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category exists on Danish Wikipedia and it can still grow with a main article about the family (exists on Danish Wikipedia) and more articles about people, estates and some written works and publications (including a 10-volume antology of poetry and a 40-volume publication of writings of ther "Era of the Free Press").Ramblersen2 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should biographies about spouses which contain information about family members who don't warrant an article in their own right (such as Adam Christopher Knuth (1687–1746)) and matrilineal descendents with another surname also be placed in family-based categories (if the article contains information about the family link)? It is a general questions and not just about this situation.Ramblersen2 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramblersen2: Except for maybe some royal families where nebulous genealogy is WP:DEFINING, I would keep the family categories to close relatives but don't worry if some of the members have a different surname. In my view, family categories aid navigation where the family is prominent locally or in a profession, like with Category:La Follette family in politics, so a reader is likely to want to go one to the other. I don't see a guideline for Family cats specifically but WP:COPDEF is always helpful. If you have general categorization questions, Wikipedia talk:Categorization is a good place to get input from editors much smarter than me. Best of luck! RevelationDirect (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even Danish wp has articles about only 3 family members. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is currently misuse of the category system. If, for example, a house such as Mørup is connected with a notable person then that relationship should be covered by (referenced) article text (including links); categorization should be (just) grouping the house with other houses (i.e. articles about similar topics). DexDor (talk) 11:44, 9 April 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:Decibel Magazine Hall of Fame inductees[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 both. Lists of the current contents of the categories are available at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 9 if needed. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:DEFINING
Decibel (magazine) is based in Philadelphia and covers heavy metal music while Rock Sound magazine is based in London and covers rock. Neither of categories are a traditional hall of fame so they don't represent a museum or a formal award ceremony. Rather, both publications have a re-occuring throwback article called "Hall of Fame" which discusses the influence of a classic album in their respective genre. When I clicked through these articles, I didn't see any other categories about having articles written about the albums which is probably a good thing since that would lead to immense category clutter. Music magazines write a lot of articles about music; it's what they do. These categories just don't seem defining. (The contents of the Rock Sound HOF are already listified here in the main article while the Decibel HOF list was deleted as WP:LISTCRUFT in this edit after this discussion.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 9 April 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:Equestrian museums[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: keep. @RevelationDirect: you may want to consider some other course of action. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2C, Consistency with established category tree names
The vast majority of sister categories for other sports already use this naming format. Until recently, there were very few Hall of Fame articles in the Category:Equestrian museums by country tree though because they were mostly housed in a separate Category:Horse racing museums and halls of fame grouping. I was bold and merged those two category trees into one. I also found a bunch of specific Hall of Fame "Inductees" categories (i.e. these contain the individual people/horse articles) and they weren't in either tree so I moved them all under the combined tree. The results of my edits is that these categories are now chock full of Hall of Fame content and this rename would better describe the actual contents for readers. (I have no suggested change for the horse racing category but it is tagged to allow flexibility with this discussion.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose and Comment: My concern here is to avoid confusion. 1) Horse racing halls of fame often have a museum component, but are sport-specific in their targeting. Some Equestrian museums may have a racing component, but not all Equestrian museums have a racing component. I think it's confusing to conflate museums for the sport of horse racing with museums for horse-related topics generally. I'm not super opposed, but I'm kind of scratching my head. Perhaps you could post a link to this discussion at WT:EQUINE and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing to see if anyone else has an opinion on this. Montanabw(talk) 00:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not intending to conflate horse racing with horse riding in general, just that it's a subtype. Currently, the entire Category:Equestrian museums category is under Category:Sports museums which may be something else to discuss. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Horse racing, WikiProject Equine and WikiProject Museums – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to point out that the Category Equestrian museums in the United States looks like it was initially created as a sub-category of Museums in the United States by type. If you check that category, they are all uniform in ending with "in the United States". Changing the category name will make it odd man out in that parent category. Just a thought. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The target of the American rename still ends in "...in the United States" though. (Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant?) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I see that now. My bad I did get confused. I had been looking at too many things last night on a long day. Carry on! dawnleelynn(talk) 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC) p.s. This is where I was looking actually: Category:Equestrian museums in the United States If you look at that page, it says differently. "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Equestrian museums and halls of fame." That is where I got the idea it was losing the tail end of the name. Just wanted to show I'm not completely out of it. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my fault! The CFD header has been fixed. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, glad it was just a small adjustment then. Thanks a bunch. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all -- If there is a physical museum (e.g. at a race course) whether called a museum or a "hall of fame", we should have an article, which can be categorised in the present category. If there is no physical museum, there certainly should not be a subcat for it. France has one article - on a museum; UK has three, of which the Royal Mews does not come anywhere near a hall of fame. I suspect it is more a museum of carriages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 14 April 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.

Union Virginia[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. MER-C 09:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: There is no article Union Virginia, and no Category:Union Virginia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US regarded Virginia as part of the United States throughout the period of the Confederacy. So Category:1861 establishments in Virginia is a subcat of both Category:1861 establishments in the Confederate States of America and Category:1861 establishments in the United States. Similarly, and Category:1862 establishments in Virginiais a subcat of both Category:1862 establishments in the Confederate States of America and Category:1862 establishments in the United States.
Unless you believe that these topics do not relate to Virginia, there is no reason to merge to anywhere other than the appropriate Virginia category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But since they were in places that did not in any way recognize the Conferderate States government that hierarchy makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, there were two POVs. The USgov saw all of Virginia as part of the United States. The Confederate govt saw it all as part of the Confederacy. So the only NPOV option is to categorise under both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename. The appropriate name for this concept is Restored Government of Virginia. I don't know what to think about the merits of a separate category here, but deletion solely for lack of a main article would be inappropriate. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it would be a bit cumbersome to create parallel chronology tree categories for alternate governments, and keep track. There is only one Category:1917 in Greece despite the fact that an alternate government was holding part of the country. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no objection against rename, both parties established quite a few things in Virginia in 1861 and 1862, and it does not make sense to lump the two categories together as if they were referring to a single state. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Actually, from both the Confederate and Union POVs, there always was a single state of Virginia. Neither side advocated splitting the state; the distinction relates only to which side had de facto control of which parts of the state at which time.
Given that control of territory changed over time (as in any war), the distinction is a hard one to sustain without detailed research in many cases. If we are going try to make such a distinction (and I hope not, because of the maintenance nightmare it will bring), then it should also be applied to parent year cat and to the disestablishments category, and not just to the establishments. To be consistent, we should also apply this to each of the Confederate States for each if the years in which their territory was under divided control. That would require several dozen new categories, most of them small. I don't think that such a proliferation of WP:NARROCATs helps readers, and if we start trying to use the category system to track the progress of the front line in wars, think of the massive complexity it would add to by-year categories for the countries involved in World War II. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The establishments are mostly not related to geography (i.e. not related to the control of territory) but related to military and then it makes all sense in the world to distinguish the two parties. In my view the best way forward would be to have a parent Category:1861 establishments in Virginia with items unrelated to the war directly in that category, and two subcategories for the establishments of military for each of the two parties. For other states I do not know if there is enough content to make the same split, let's discuss that on a case-by-case basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle the topics relating to the military forces of the two sides are already separated in their respective military hierarchies. Carrying that division on through into the by-state establishments categories adds an extra level of complexity, but to what benefit? As I note elsewhere, there is some merit in the criticism that the category system is becoming a Rube Goldberg machine, and at some point we need to stop creating so many intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Eric. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There was only one Virginia even if the territory occupied by the opposing armies varied. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - aside from the considerations above, the purpose of categories is to help non-experts find stuff, so whilst some people like to micromanage the names I tend to emphasise consistency and predictability. Hence we have xxxx in France categories regardless of whether it should in theory be xxxx in the Kingdom of France at some points of history and eg xxxx in the French Republic at others. It makes it easier for people not expert in French history to use "France" categories - and also easier for navigation templates and other automatic processes. The benefits of that kind of thing far outweigh the slight reduction in historical precision.Le Deluge (talk) 12:41, 24 April 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/2019_April_9&oldid=904454075"