Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Japan[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 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Various prefecture and city categories
Rationale - Category:Organizations based in Japan and Category:Organizations based in Japan by subject use 'organizations' predominantly. There is no pressing case for using 'organisations' in Japan. Oculi (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So two categories use a Z and 37 use an S? I agree consistency is good, but as the English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other. I would think maintaining a majority would be better for a non-anglophone country. --Nessie (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "z" since Japan is likely to follow American, not British usage, due to post-WWII occupation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much though I hate to admit it, support per PeterKI as Japan was dominated by US English after WWII. Grutness...wha? 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (despite being British and using -s- spelling in my personal writing). – Fayenatic London 20:55, 13 June 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:Adult animation studios[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. MER-C 09:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Adult animation" is vague, and almost all of the studios currently included also produce "non-adult" animation, so it's unclear what the point of the category is. Trivialist (talk) 23:15, 11 June 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:Post–World War II forced migrations in Europe[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 09:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Both categories are exclusively about Europe. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 11 June 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:First Ladies and Gentlemen of California[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/wait. MER-C 09:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect recent elected Governor of California's partner status. Or, rename to 'First Spouses and Partners of California' to avoid future renaming as someone with male spouse get elected. Störm (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We would have to rename the whole category tree of "Spouses". Also, per our article, "Spouse" we better use the term "significant other", which covers all kind of civil unions, formal and informal,and this will open the whole can of worms. So we better keep category for legal marriages. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is the official title used by them, see California Governor's site which says 'First Partner'. Störm (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, "First Partner of California", sounds great. Not. The term "First Lady" makes deep sense. "Lady" means here noble. "Partner", ... mmm ... porno? "First Partner" .... boinked a virgin? I understand political correctness, but not brainless one, bordering with idiotizmus. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, following [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Shouldn't this be treated for the entire Category:Spouses of national leaders/Category:Official social partners of national leaders tree, rather than just California and New Zealand? The case of France's Valérie Trierweiler and Julie Gayet also comes to mind. Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We may allow local variations. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. When a term is predominant in local use or established as a local standard, it should definitely trump the more generic spouses and partners. Place Clichy (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Place Clichy Apparently, if we succeed in renaming it then we could proceed to renaming whole tree provided we get consensus using WP:RfC. Störm (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. per Place Clichy. This has precedent-setting potential in the tree structures mentioned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Jennifer Seibel has stated a personal preference for being called "First Partner" instead of "First Lady", but we have not yet reached the point where that's become an established or emerging standard format for the position's official name yet — it's just her personal choice, not yet a cultural norm. I'd strongly encourage American media to seriously reconsider whether the title needs to be gendered at all — is it really necessary to call special attention to the spouse's gender by calling them "lady" or "gentleman", instead of just calling them "First Spouse" or "First Partner"? — but I don't have a magic wand to make that happen. (It's also likely only a matter of time before a state or national First Spouse somewhere in the world comes out as non-binary, and thus neither a "lady" nor a "gentleman", but it would also be crystal-balling to predict how long that is or isn't going to take.) We could certainly also stand to have a larger discussion about whether we should strip gender qualifiers from our category tree and move to spouse or partner on here — but this really shouldn't be just a scattershot of "move one category based on one person's individual preferences, while leaving parallel categories for other states or countries named in wildly inconsistent formats based solely on whether they've had their own first person to confound the gendered terminology issue yet or not" — for example, even though California has never had a woman or openly gay male governor as of today, and thus there are no men in this category yet, it should still retain "gentlemen" so that state-specific subcats of Category:Spouses of United States state governors are consistent with each other. (Degendering them to "First Spouses" or "First Partners" would be even better, but until there's a consensus for that, the inclusion or exclusion of "gentlemen" should not be uniquely contingent on whether that individual state has had its own woman or gay male governors yet or not.) Their locations need to be predictable, even if you don't already know the regional gender breakdowns, so we shouldn't be varying from the standard format. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8Comment- as with the New Zealand one below, Category:Consorts of Governors of California might be a tidier name. Grutness...wha? 04:15, 17 June 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:Spouses of Prime Ministers of New Zealand[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/wait. MER-C 09:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As current Prime Minister is unmarried, and in future this thing would continue. So, better rename it to reflect her partner status in the title. As he is not 'spouse'. Störm (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have to rename the whole category tree of "Spouses". Also, per our article, "Spouse" we better use the term "significant other", which covers all kind of civil unions, formal and informal,and this will open the whole can of worms. So we better keep category for legal marriages. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, it does not seem an established title yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle Read at bottom of the page of NZ govt official article. Travel entitlements within New Zealand for former prime ministers and their spouses or partners. So, at least valid in this case. Störm (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy I have changed the target according to suggestion. Place your vote. Störm (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory, though would prefer a better title (and would definitely prefer a lower-case p for "partners"!) Grutness...wha? 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness But consorts is usually reserved for reigning monarch. I prefer 'Spouses and partners of ...'. Störm (talk) 12:08, 21 June 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:Fairies and sprites in television[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 6#Category:Fairies and sprites in television

Category:Fairies or sprites in video games[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 to Category:Fantasy video games (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, it simply categorizes all games that feature the element without actually being noteworthy for it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The assessment seems to be the nominator's POV only. Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: It has nothing to do with my opinion. It clearly violates WP:NONDEF by including anything that has a fairy in it, regardless of whether it is noteworthy for having one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:26, 13 June 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:Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis) politicians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 6#Category:Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis) politicians

Category:Public universities in Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 6#Category:Public universities in Greece

Category:Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing Projects[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 merge WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is WP:MAD! The difference is in capitalisation; where BOINC should be uppercase, but projects should be lowercase. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 06:49, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=906057218"