Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

December 14

[edit]

Category:H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society

[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. MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a small category with little potential for growth. The vast majority of things associated with this organisation are obscure and non-notable. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:16, 14 December 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 talk:World War II television programmes by genre

[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 08:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category doesn't seem to be making sense and should be merge to the other. NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:16, 14 December 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 talk:World War II in television fiction

[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 08:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category doesn't seem to be making sense and should be merge to the other. NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:16, 14 December 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 talk:World War II television programmes

[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 08:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category doesn't seem to be making sense and should be merge to the other. NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:16, 14 December 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:Frozen Pension

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Frozen Pension

Category:Sportspeople with dementia

[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 08:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current category title encourages the inclusion of sportspeople who had dementia in later life which had little to do with their occupation, which is a trivial intersection. A non-trivial intersection is where dementia has been caused by one's occupation (I believe this was the category creator's intended focus), which was the case for Mike Webster and Jeff Astle for example. Changing the focus to the cause (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) rather than the degenerative condition (dementia) allows us to make this distinction. SFB 18:05, 14 December 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:Religions with official status in Kurdistan Region

[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. MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Where does this end? Do Christianity and Islam end up with hundreds of categories for every subnational unit where they have official status? This is surely not WP:DEFINING. Le Deluge (talk) 10:57, 14 December 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:American Theater Hall of Fame inductees

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Category:American Theater Hall of Fame inductees

Category:New Mexico and Arizona Campaign

[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, as the conservative option given the split here. The split merge proposal has traction, and it should be raised in a new nomination now that the rename has been taken off the table. MER-C 05:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Case normalize. Campaigns are seldom treated as proper name by sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:48, 14 December 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:Allotropes

[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 Category:Allotropy to Category:Allotropes. MER-C 08:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from this upmerge on commons (commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Allotropes), I propose that "This category is for articles giving an overview of allotropy or of the allotropes of particular elements. For articles about specific allotropes" is too limiting a scope for Category:Allotropes since would would exclude articles about several allotropes of a single element where there are not stand-alone articles for each allotrope (not members of "A category for materials which are an allotrope of a chemical element."), and we often have that situation. Thus we have a false distinction and poor navigability to find such articles. The article Allotropy is the only article on the actual theory of this topic, so I don't think having it together with all the articles on specific instances of that main-art would be a problem. If we have a bunch of articles on allotropy/allotropes of a certain element, we could easily have a subcat for that element, which still retains navigability and the main-vs-subtopic purpose of cats.
The previous CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 12#Category:Allotropic materials by element decided to distinguish between materials and theory, but now 5 years later that doesn't seem to have worked out because there is only one on "theory" which is now being conflated with "multiple (vs single) material of a single element". DMacks (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, Prefer reverse merge but the subject needs some adjustment first. For the concept of allotropes to arise there must be two forms of an element. Accordingly to articles need to be moved down to a category allotropes of foo, before the merger is completed. the present target has a much better structure, to which the contents of the subject need to be fitted, but allotropes is the better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'm ambivalent about which should be the name of the unified category. I chose "allotropy" to parallel commons and which is the current parent cat. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allotropes of boron is pretty much just a list of the individual allotropes (and comparisons among them), not about the phenomonenon of allotropy as a phenomenon--it's a compiled set of sections that would be stub articles if someone cared to pull them apart. Allotropy is certainly a topic article, but IMO the only one. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer reverse merge, apart from the main article this appears to be set categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above, I prefer a reverse merge, but certainly merge somehow. The problem is that one of these is well-structured as allotropes of boo, while the other is disorganised. Some purging will be needed, so that (for example) various forms of boron appear in allotropes of boron, not in its parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 16 December 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:Chinese fantasy-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: no consensus. The entire tree should be considered in a standardisation nomination. MER-C 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is fantasy comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:52, 14 December 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:Indian fantasy-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: no consensus. The entire tree should be considered in a standardisation nomination. MER-C 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is Fantasy comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:52, 14 December 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:Fantasy-comedy films by decade

[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. The entire tree should be considered in a standardisation nomination. MER-C 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is Fantasy comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:52, 14 December 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:American fantasy-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: no consensus. The entire tree should be considered in a standardisation nomination. MER-C 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is fantasy comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:52, 14 December 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:Vehicles rebuilt in China

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Category:Vehicles rebuilt in China

Category:Crossings of the Prut River

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Category:Crossings of the Prut River

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_14&oldid=932618353"