Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 20

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

October 20[edit]

Category:Christianity and Paganism[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. @Bohemian Baltimore, Marcocapelle, and Place Clichy: Should the articles Christianity and Paganism and Christianity and Neopaganism be renamed as well? -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Paganism should not be capitalized. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:05, 21 October 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.

Distance education[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The result of the discussion was: merge/rename as indicated except where withdrawn. MER-C 10:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to withdraw this. There are some articles not about institutions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory is only content Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment attempt to bundle almost identical nominations made by the nominator. Note that there was traction in the previous discussion towards opening a discussion about the merge of all Distance education by country categories with Distance education institutions. @Rathfelder: it would really help if you created yourself bundled nominations using the very simple steps outlined at WP:CFD#HOWTO, or otherwise ask for help to do so. It goes nowhere to create so many simultaneous separate discussions on a virtually identical topic. @Marcocapelle and Oculi: as you expressed the same opinion several times on this page I took the liberty to copy and paste it here. @Trialpears, Dmehus, and Bearcat: pinging participants in open discussions about these same categories, many of which have requested a bundle nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rathfelder has been given explicit instruction (by Marcocapelle) on bundling on his talk page in 2017. But then Rathfelder, whose first edit was in 2005, is yet to master the far simpler art of indentation. Oculi (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand how making personal remarks helps the spirit of collaboration. The reason I didnt nominate them all together was that I was investigating possible content for these categories. I think they should be considered individually and I haven't nominated all the subcategories. If there are articles about distance education, as opposed to articles about institutions, I think we should keep them.Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is hardly any content about online education (in any country) except for institutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is commonplace for a parent category to comprise one subcategory. There are 2 established subcat schemes: Category:Distance education by country and Category:Distance education institutions by country. Oculi (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marcocapelle, there is hardly any content about distance education (in any country) except for institutions. Note that more categories may need to be tagged to complete the nomination, e.g. Category:Distance education by country, Category:Distance education by continent and subcategories for Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States. Place Clichy (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Distance education in Australia has several articles which are not institutions (and Canada is being discussed elsewhere). It is obvious that 'Distance education in foo' is potentially much wider than 'Distance education institutions based in foo'. For instance it is arguable that Category:Indian educational websites should be a subcat of Category:Distance education in India. Oculi (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual discussions (incl. Canada) have been referred here. All the Canada discussion said is that it needs a bundle discussion.
    In substance, several contributors consider that nearly all that can be notable at the country level about distance education is institutions (note that nobody argues for merging the topic category Distance education). The few content that would not relate to institutions can be included in both, for instance, Category:Distance education and Category:Education in Australia (i.e. upmerged rather than downmerged). I can believe that there is more specific content for Australia than other countries (apparently due to the scarce population density of the outback), but it may still not pass WP:SUBCAT and is certainly not sufficient rationale for a by-country category tree.
    Out of the 6 articles currently in Distance education in Australia, 2 are about institutions (1, 2), one is in a grey zone (it is a government institution on the topic, not a teaching institution per se), one does not even discuss the topic of distance education, one is a fictional work on the topic, and only one is really a general article about the concept: School of the Air. I would downmerge the first three, delete the next and upmerge the last two. That's not enough for a parent distance education category, and certainly not enough for a parent category in every country. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks User:Place Clichy for combining these nominations. I am supporting most of them, as I did in the separate nominations, but I would suggest to keep Canada, India and Australia separate, since more specific discussion has taken place for these three countries. All other separate discussions can presumably be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I also thank User:Place Clichy for combining these nominations and apologies for spreading them out. I spent some time exploring and I'm still not sure how to handle them. We could populate some of the distance education categories with subcategories like educational websites and digital libraries, but I'm not convinced that would help. And in any case libraries and websites can be seen as institutions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: not only the Canadian, but also the Brazilian and Indian original nomination had been withdrawn by nominator User:Rathfelder. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to keep the categories if there are articles which are not about institutions. But if the consensus is that they should all go I wouldn't want to object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)
  • I believe it's better to discuss them separately, not as part of this batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 27 October 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:Rescue Me 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: delete. MER-C 10:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I redirected all but one character per WP:BOLD, as most of the character pages were unsourced fancruft that had been utterly untouched since 2007 and gave no out-of-universe notability. Tommy Gavin can probably stay since he's the protagonist and his article has secondary sources (which were conspicuously absent from the rest). Other than that we have only the List of Rescue Me characters page and a bunch of redirects, which per WP:OCAT is just not enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 20 October 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:Tango in Argentina[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Category:Tango in Argentina

Category:Online schools in Wisconsin[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 09:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Only 31 in the whole USA. Rathfelder (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, subdividing this by state would result in very small categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 22 October 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:306 Records albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Category:306 Records albums

Category:Chulalongkorn family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 2#Category:Chulalongkorn family

Category:Methodist church buildings[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 per option A. MER-C 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Denied speedy (@Armbrust and Laurel Lodged: pinging contributors). Categories have identical scope and much overlapping content and should be merged whatever the outcome. I am pretty neutral towards which name should be picked, and the churches vs. church buildings debate has never given very clear consensus in the past. Parent Category:Protestant churches by denomination has a mixboth: Anglican, Brethren, Mennonite, Reformed and United Protestants use church buildings, while Christian Science, Congretional, Episcopal, Evangelical, Lutheran, Moravian, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Swedenborgian use churches. However, I note that churches has the disadvantadge of inviting users to add articles about full-fledged church organizations at large, which should be better placed in Methodist denominations, such as the Protestant Methodist Church in Benin (90,000 members, 420 congregations) or the Free Church of Tonga (congregations in 6 countries). I therefore prefer Option A. Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Reverse merge or merge, the two categories should not exist next to each other since they have the same scope. I also have a preference for option A, for the same reason as nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Option A to make it less tempting for editors to add congregations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose Option A, which would place Category:Methodist congregations established in the 19th century‎ within "buildings". Instead, I suggest Option C: Rename Category:Methodist church buildings to Category:Methodist church buildings by date of completion and make it a sub-category of Category:Methodist churches. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Category:Methodist congregations established in the 19th century‎ contains articles about church buildings (which also contain a section about the congregation therein) so in principle they should be in a churches built category rather than a congregations established category. Note that I do not exclude the existance of building-independent congregations (I actually know two congregations in my own surroundings who moved from one church building to another), but they will not likely be notable for wp. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Marcocapelle here: the "congregations" subcategories can be renamed to "church buildings" or "churches built in" category following the result of the current discussion. Note that their content really seems to be about church buildings, not congregations, e.g.: Bethel Methodist Church (Bantam, Ohio) is a historic Methodist church building in rural Clermont County, Ohio, United States. Built in the 1810s under the leadership of one of Ohio's earliest Methodist preachers, it has survived the death of its congregation, and it remains in use for community activities. Place Clichy (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then correct the categorisation of such pages (stating the rationale in the edit summary, of course). If any of the "congregations" categories by century have contents that are entirely like that, by all means nominate such a category for merger to the buildings category for that century. However, as long as there are "congregations" categories that are prima facie valid, I oppose Option A, and prefer option C. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D Changing my vote. Retain both. Create a third cat called Category:Methodist congregations. Let both this and the buildings be children of Churches which becomes a container . Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really the issue here. The ambiguity brought by "churches" was that users added large church bodies with hundreds of congregations. There can legitimately be a single category for both single-building congregations and single-congregation buildings (excluding large church organizations). The structure you are suggesting was afaik never put forward by anyone in any of the churches/church buildings discussions. It is true that some articles are mostly focussed on the congregation where that is the more notable element of the two (very grossly, my feeling is that it happens more often in a New World / Protestant / congressionalist context) while others focus more on the building (symetrically, in branches of Christianity following episcopal polity i.e. Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran etc., individual congregations or parishes have little autononous existence and would rarely be notable on their own, while church buildings are often monuments in high regard). However, this is just very much a way to write an article about essentially the same topic. Splitting building-oriented and congregation-oriented articles in separate categories brings more problems than it would improve things. Place Clichy (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I don't see the problem that you see in Option D. Firstly it's likely that the thrust of an article will be either building or congregation, in which case categorisation is easy. If it's both, then use both categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems very unpractical to me to maintain a three-leg structure for churches/church buildings/congregations. But mostly, it would be even stranger to have this structure for Methodist categories only. They are currently the only ones suffering from this duplication. Place Clichy (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stools with 3 legs are the most stable. If other denominations suffer from the same problem, I'm happy to replicate the structure for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do not address the fact that the "Methodist congregations" categories are currently about church buildings. This does not help in making the case for splitting content in separate subcategories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer during the speedy discussion copied above about what is essentially Option B, User:Armbrust expressed the following: Oppose Every member of the category is about buildings (except List of Methodist churches, which should be removed from the category). I'd like to invite them to express any similar or different opinion on the merge options above. Place Clichy (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A -- We had a similar nom a little while back concerning churches /buildings in general, which I think was resolved this way. The problem is that the churches includes "congregations" subcat, but most of the content seems to be about ones meeting in buildings, so that these can also be merged to the sibling buildings cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 October 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:Professional wrestling navigational boxes named after people[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 per first choice. MER-C 10:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category are not just navboxes named after people, but navboxes about people. Compare to Category:Actor navigational boxes‎, instead of Category:Performing arts navigational boxes named after people. All 12 individuals in this category are professional wrestlers, but some also held other roles (e.g. promoter, etc.), so a more generic title could be appropriate. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:*Treker) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: which option? MER-C 08:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1st choice; no objection to also creating the other suggested name as a parent category if other members for it are created. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 31 October 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:Wreckers (Transformers)[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of a minor fictional aspect. The characters are present elsewhere in the category structure so no need to merge. TTN (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent Category:Autobots as one member is currently not in that one. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean Cyclonus? Cyclonus is not an Autobot to begin with. Somehow he is still listed as a Wrecker, that might be a plot point in the UK comic. JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In-universe overcategorisation. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, no need to merge; go ahead and delete. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 22 October 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:Emperors of Destruction[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 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of a minor fictional aspect. It's just a title rather than actual status, so upmerging to "Fictional emperors and empresses" seem improper. TTN (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is supposed to be a title of leadership of a political faction. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In-universe overcategorisation. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Paul_012. It is trivial to categorize fictional topics based on fictional (in-universe) characteristics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:17, 28 October 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.

Template:Nbl-stub[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 09:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused, non-standardised stub template (doesn't use {{asbox}}), with no associated stub category. There are no stub templates for any other sport tournaments. SD0001 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 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:The Pink Panther 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. with Category:The Pink Panther (cartoons) characters. There is a consensus for the alternative merger with Category:The Pink Panther (cartoons) characters, but currently no consensus with regards to the original proposal of merging with Category:The Pink Panther. If someone want further mergers to be performed please start another CfD. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary two article category TTN (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:45, 20 October 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_October_20&oldid=927197830"