Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19 December 21 >

December 20[edit]

Category:Greyhawk organizations[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 04:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very few articles, most of which are now up for deletion. There simply aren't many, if any, real-world notable organisations in the Dungeons & Dragons setting of Greyhawk. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, merge to parent categories, instead of plain delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 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:Category:Rugby union coaches 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: do not merge. MER-C 03:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The nationality tree is much better populated. No indication that there is intended to be a distinction between nationality and country. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of the sparsely populated heirarchy Category:Rugby union coaches by country. The only actual article is about a coach who appears to be a South African citizen. Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all- many rugby coaches in England are not English. Of course there is an indication that it is 'by country' because we have Category:Rugby union coaches in England by club. Eddie Jones is a rugby union coach in England. Warren Gatland is one in Wales. Oculi (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - These are for coaches based in particularly countries, not those who are from particular countries. – PeeJay 21:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Just because someone coaches in one particular category doesn't men they are of that nationality. A New Zealand friend of mine is currently coaching cricket in India - that doesn't make him Indian. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all for reasons outlined above. Coaches can be based in one country while having the nationality of another. How hard is that to explain. Ridiculous nomination. Had similar issue a few years back with rugby union referees. Djln Djln (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Once upon a time coaches were always of the home nation. This is no longer the case, so that by country (of operation) and from country (of origin) are both needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case we should reverse merge all the nationality categories, or split them. Many articles say nothing about the nationality status of the subject. Do we want two sets of categories, one listing them by nationality and the other by the country in which they operate - and presumably some will move from one country to another? Rathfelder (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We only have Category:Rugby union players by country, and Category:Rugby union people by country not by nationality. Why do we need two trees for coaches? There are a lot less of them. Two trees is not workable. Nationality is rarely established in the articles. It's mostly guess work. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 21 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:From First to Last songs[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 03:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band has no notable songs to warrant a category at this time. All categorized pages are redirects. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator. A category full of redirects to targets which offer nothing more than being included on an album's track listing doesn't help readers. I'm not necessarily against the redirects themselves. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:56, 23 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:Philosophers by position[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 03:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Presidents of the Aristotelian Society Rathfelder (talk) 17:30, 20 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:Continuous journals[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: do not merge. MER-C 03:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, based on the descriptions in the articles it appears that "open access scientific journals" is the usual term for this type of journals. We already have Category:Open access journals for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty, Headbomb, Rathfelder, PamD, Grutness, DGG, and Tom (LT): pinging contributors to this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Continuous journals refer to journal where articles are published immediately upon acceptance in their final form. The majority of those will certainly be open access, however they are distinct concepts and not all continuous journals are open access. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't come across continuous journals that weren't an open access journal. Also the journals in this category are not portrayed as a continuous journal but as an open-access journal (see WP:DEFINING). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people are over excited about the frequency of publication. For online stuff it doesnt seem very defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose these are distinct concepts. You may propose deleting all of Category:Academic journals by publication frequency, though. fgnievinski (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Headbomb's counterexample above. Not the same thing - one is payment/nonpayment, one is publication pattern. PamD 18:39, 20 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:Scout Activity Centres 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: rename. MER-C 03:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct categorization of "Country". It may be appropriate to also decapitalise "Scout Centres" - if so then the subcats should also be renamed. DexDor (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I'm equally uncertain about the capitals in "Scout Activity Centre". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 20 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:Bridges over the Kharkiv River[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 28#Category:Bridges over the Kharkiv River

Category:Transformers: Prime characters[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 04:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The franchise characters have been reduced from over 400 to under twenty, so listing characters by franchise is pointless. The character list should be upmerged, but the other characters are covered elsewhere in the category structure. TTN (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, by having so many nominations simultaneously, don't we run the risk to remove articles from the Transformers hierarchy entirely? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, most of these categories were doubled and tripled up over time. The only categories that matter are the ones nominated up above to merge into the parent category, Autobots and Decepticons. Every article in the series was covered under the due to them being the primary means of categorization. TTN (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the rate these deletions are going, we won't have a Transformers hierarchy for long. JIP | Talk 10:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 07:29, 20 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:Action Masters[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 04:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific in-universe fictional designation that doesn't matter to the general reader. All characters are covered elsewhere in the category structure. TTN (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, by having so many nominations simultaneously, don't we run the risk to remove articles from the Transformers hierarchy entirely? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 07:29, 20 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:Decepticons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 29#Category:Decepticons

Category:Censored works 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. MER-C 03:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains just 1 subcat. which is already in Category:Censorship in China‎ Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of potential for growth, China is hardly the only country with works banned or censored. In fact virtually every country qualifies, see Category:Censorship by country. We will get more 'works banned in country x'. Note that banning is the extreme version of censorship, some works are censored (modified), and some are banned. Perhaps this could be renamed, to Category:Banned works by country or such, the point is that plenty of categories that are named Category:Works banned in Foo country should be created, and we need a container category for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the one hand, I am sympathetic to Piotrus' remarks. On the other hand, I am a bit concerned about the possibility that there may be works that have been banned by multiple countries, which would result in additional category clutter. However, if that proved to be the case we could always revisit this issue and trade in the categories for a set of lists. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of works which have been censored in various places and at various times. But being censored in a particular country is generally not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 07:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Category:Censored works is a perfectly adequate parent category and does not need a 'by country' subtree until there are 'by something else' subtrees. Oculi (talk) 08:49, 20 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:Banu Hasan[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 03:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:ENG and WP:COMMONNAME in English-language literature (compare Hasanids/Husaynids to Banu Hasan/Banu Husayn, where the latter also include some non-English sources and is limited mostly to direct translations from the Arabic) and the recently created parent articles Hasanids and Husaynids. Constantine ✍ 11:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 07:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency with the article titles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 21 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:Drawers (artists)[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.
Closer's note 1: For the record, Category:Drawers was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_1#Category:Drawers. There was no consensus to rename Category:Baroque draughtsmen at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_20#Category:Baroque_draughtsmen, nor at the contemporary discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_23#Category:Draughtsmen. Any follow-up nomination would do well to make it a group nomination with the sub-categories.
Note 2: In other Wikipedias, only Japan has two categories, ja:Category:製図家 stated to be for artists as well as technical drafters, and ja:Category:ドローイング作家 for illustrators. Commons likewise has commons:category:Drafters and commons:category:Drawers (artists), but little content other than for visual artists. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In theory, the Category:Draughtsmen is for drafters, technical drawers (engineering).
In practice, the hundreds of people in Category:Draughtsmen are for 95%+ visual artists, not technical drafters. The 46 people in Category:Drawers (artists) are also visual artists.
The best solution may be to merge the drawers to the draughtsmen category, and to move the few technical drawers to a new Category:Drafters instead. But better ideas are welcome. Fram (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 07:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the main Wikipedia article, Drafter, it is not for artists, but for technical draughtsmen. So any artists should be removed/recategorised. Sionk (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In British English, a person who prepares architects drawings (if not the architect himself) or the blueprints in shipbuilding is a draughtsman, not a drafter. We might split Category:Artist draughtsmen and Category:Technical draughtsmen. Om British English a draft is the old air that comes under an ill-fitting door or window. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_20&oldid=944129969"