Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Category:Anthropomorphism by media[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. The case that these categories are subjective/non-defining is stronger, considering that the focus of the contents is generally not about anthropomorphism in and of itself, and may be more fittingly categorized under other category schemes. bibliomaniac15 03:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains mostly categories, which are Comics/Films/Literature/Etc. featuring anthropomorphic characters. Feels like this should be named similarly for consistency, as "Media featuring anthropomorphic characters", and should probably be cleared out to be designated as a container category. (Currently contains only one barely relevant article.) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: added the subcategories just for context -- original proposal was to rename just the main category, and looking to build a consensus towards the best solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nondefining: The first line of our article Anthropomorphism says "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1] It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology." I venture that anything featuring innate tendencies of human psychology is non-defining. The mere saying that the "weather is wicked" or ascribing anything to "Mother Nature" or whether we think our cats plot against us, etc. is so prevalent among tv shows, other media that it cannot be defining. The subcategories should all be tagged for deletion too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as they are based on a trivial characteristic that defines neither the plot nor the setting of fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I see the case for these being subjective and non-defining. If there's no consensus to rename these and make them more precise / consistent, I support deleting all as non-defining. Shooterwalker (talk)
  • Keep The suggested renamings actually feature no changes. There are no changes in either spelling or scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Works about anthropomorphic animals or beings Like many other similar categories, merely "featuring" something violates WP:NONDEF. However, if a work is about something, it can definitely be defined by that thing. That is also true with anthropomorphic characters. Outright deletion would be a knee jerk response to a problem that has been addressed in countless other similar categories.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Zxcvbunm. Also keep the categories because they are basically works with a mascot, which is already a defining characteristic. OceanHok (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2020 (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:Fictional plains[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 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that has no articles in it. Only redirects that don't even really point at information about fictional plains because these aren't really significant enough to cover as part of a plot summary either. This category isn't providing even the bare minimum of value. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2020 (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:Fictional mountain passes[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 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that only contains redirects, with no potential for article growth. Even the redirects don't really point to information about mountain passes, because they've been lost as insignificant plot details. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2020 (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.

Women guitarists[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 and rename Category:Female guitarists to Category:Women guitarists for standardization. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the supercategory Category:Female guitarists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you hear a guitarist, you know the gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion? If you cannot tell, it's not material. WP:CATEGRS And if you hear a guitarist play a piece by someone else, if the guitarist's gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion is so noticeable, then the composer's is also irrelevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories are to a certain extent counterproductive. The more interesting articles (from a women's history point of view) are of women musicians performing before e.g. the year 1950, when women musicians were still an exception, but the categories are mostly populated with women musicians performing after 1950 when women musicians became more common. I do not have a solution for this problem however. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 20th and 21st century categories. This is an attempt to re-create a past/present distinction, which we decided not to allow some considerable time ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the category tree about women musicians, and it should be consistent in naming. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2020 (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:Fictional time periods[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Category:Fictional time periods

Category:2020-21 in Republic of Macedonia basketball[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No difference in scope. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2020 (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:Unicode charts[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For clarification and per the categorisation into Category:Unicode templates. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Seems uncontroversial. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately oppose. Due to technical limitations on templates, several members of this category are actually articles instead of templates. This was a huge mess round about ten years ago for WikiProject Writing Systems, and the stable consensus of holding that content in the article namespace was hard-fought. There might be an argument for forking a template-only subcategory, but I don't know that it would have any practical utility. The current name is as accurate as it can be, and its minor incongruity with a parent category is a far lesser issue than absolute incongruity with category members. VanIsaacWScont 19:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm sorry I didn't notice. Yeah, it's probably better to leave it as is. I'd like to see what other editors think though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the discussion focuses apparently on the few list articles in this category. These lists are not part of any non-template category, e.g. they are not part of a list category, so there is some inconsistency going on here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency is solely because of the technical limitations in Wikipedia. The content of a "list" vs template category member is fundamentally equivalent, and their usage in a linking/transcluding article is identical. It is solely the size of the Unicode chart that determines whether it is a template to be transcluded or a list article to be linked. Either way, they are unequivocally Unicode charts. VanIsaacWScont 13:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The pages are mostly templates and the category's parents are template categories so why shouldn't this category have a more appropriate name? Whether the articles(?) (e.g. this) belong in this category is a separate issue. If this category can't (for some technical reason) be renamed that should be explained in the category text. DexDor (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but split to Category:Unicode chart templates and Category:Unicode chart lists and have the two categories interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for splitting the category? I'm worried about duplication of content if the templates and list articles get separated. If there's a list of CJK Unified Characters, why not a list of Aegean Numbers? With the template covering the Aegean Numbers block housed in a completely separate category, wouldn't it look like it was missing? VanIsaacWScont 02:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that'd be a problem. In most cases, that list is small enough to fit into the article about the block; in cases of big blocks there are separate lists. This could also be added to the category as an explanation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just really don't get why we would want to do that. There is yearly maintenance of this content when each new version of the Unicode Standard is released, and splitting this category up on the arbitrary basis of an unrelated technical limitation makes that task harder. Is there any actual task or functioning made better by splitting up this content into separate categories? Is there some piece of maintenance that requires having the word "template" or "list" in the category name? Because there is definitely a regular maintenance task that is made more difficult by it. VanIsaacWScont 05:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of these are just Unicode charts. When they're small enough to be transcluded, they are in the form of a template, and when they are too large, they're in the form of an independent pseudo-article, both containing the chart table. All of them are sourced exactly the same - to the current Unicode standard, and with an external link to the official code chart. In no way should there be any categorical distinction between the two unless it is necessary for some sort of maintenance. Each member of the category has exactly equivalent content, regardless of namespace. VanIsaacWScont 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a pseudo article does not exist. A list is an article. But if you think it is actually a template, then it is fine with me to convert it to a template. And if, perhaps, it is not needed at all, because we can simply replace the links to the article by links to an external source, then it is fine with me to bring it to AfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? We have all kinds of pseudo articles on Wikipedia - disambiguation pages, lists, soft redirects, etc. And no, these aren't templates. As I've explained multiple times, they are not transcluded, and it is not on a whim that things are the way they are. There is no pat answer here, and the current status is a best fit to the facts on the ground. If there is a good reason to change something, please say what it is. But nitpicking about terminology is not productive at all. VanIsaacWScont 02:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reading this discussion, I don't get the impression that the rename is actually solving anything. Because the members of this list are fulfilling the same function, I believe that splitting would be disruptive per Vanisaac's reasoning. bibliomaniac15 19:20, 11 October 2020 (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:Members of the Bundestag for the Socialist Unity Party of Germany[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 rename. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For some reason the category for PDS Bundestag members was changed to SED, although the people in the category represented PDS and SED never had any Bundestag representation.Soman (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Yes, the SED never had any members in the Bundestag.
The previous move was very odd. Category:Members of the Bundestag for PDS was not listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Members_of_the_Bundestag_by_party, but for someone reason it was moved by the bot[1] as if it had been listed at that discussion. I was going to pin the closer User:Bibliomaniac15 to ask if they had any idea how this happened ... but I see that actually Good Ol’factory added[2] this cat to WP:CFDW as one that had been missed ... but unfortunately, they misinterpreted the abbreviation "PDS". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that Category:Members of the Bundestag for PDS had been placed as a subcat at Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany politicians. I edited it before posting to CfD [3] --Soman (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How interesting. I didn't realize Olfactory had added it in there amidst the masses of acronyms there! Thanks for the catch y'all. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, correcting an administrative mistake. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This could probably be speedied as it was simply a botched attempt to "fix" a closed discussion; I had tagged this category but failed to list it with the others. My mistake x 2. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (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:Philippine Hot 100 number-one singles[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 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Philippine Hot 100 only had a short run and reaching number one on the chart is not a defining aspect for any of the songs that did so. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:34, 28 July 2020 (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/2020_July_28&oldid=984356306"