Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4[edit]

Category:Coke Studio recreated 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Songs performed on a TV show are not defining for those songs. Effectively a re-creation of a recently deleted category, Coke Studio Songs Richhoncho (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say this qualifies as a G4 recreation and should be speedied. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy We just did this. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't take this to speedy because it is not a 'precise' recreation of a deleted category, but if anybody wants to G4 this, I would not object. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too few names after all. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:17, 6 June 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:Lists of Australian comedy-sitcom television series episodes[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing name. Not all pages included in this category are sitcoms, some are simply comedy series, so it doesn't make sense to group both in the same category. snapsnap (talk) 17:09, 4 June 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:Academics of the University of Malaya[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: Reverse merge Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. University of Foo faculty seems to be the most frequent format for other categories in Category:Faculty by university in Malaysia (4 to 1), and generally the most common format for similar Wikipedia categories. Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obvious duplicates. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is another example of the North Americanisation of English Wikipedia. In much of the world, particularly Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia, the term "faculty" actually refers to a division within a university. Only in North America does it refer to academic personnel. Over the years American and Americanised editors have manipulated Wikipedia categories so that overwhelming majority of categories for academic personnel outside of North America use "faculty" rather than "academics" even though WP:COMMONNAME requires that they use "academics".--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I had forgotten about this. So it should be a reverse merge instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge -- This use of faculty is an Americanism inappropriate to Commonwealth countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Use of "faculty" in this way is an Americanism and inappropriate for most Commonwealth countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 9 June 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:Climate change deniers[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 and salt Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this discussion. Now that Category:Climate change denialists was deleted, keeping this redirect (pointing to Category:Climate change denial) only creates confusion. It would be logical to also delete it. Note that if Climate change deniers had been pointed to Climate change denialists as could be reasonably expected, it would have been eligible to speedy deletion per WP:G8 as dependent of a now-deleted page. Place Clichy (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion. In addition it may make sense to salt both in order to prevent recreation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt per previous discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (and populate) climate change is a fact supported by a majority of scientist. To claim climate change is fake to be a denier, straight and simple, same as claiming the Holocaust never happened is to be a Holocaust denier. I know this is probably a lost cause, but the previous two CFDs were faulty in my opinion, and 3 wrongs do not make a right. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What will we do when Category:Climate change denial is filled up with biographical articles? Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a hatnote to the category page in order to discourage that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 6 June 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:The Sandlot film series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Category:The Sandlot film series

Category:Disambiguation page with short description[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 to delete; rename to Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be plural. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:22, 4 June 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:Jerry Kilgore (singer) 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry which is a redirect. No assistance to editing Richhoncho (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no assistance to navigation (is probably what nom meant too). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 5 June 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:Mass media theorists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories caught in up, speedily, in the not-entirely-thought-out universal find/replace of "media" with "mass media." Their subcats use "media", not "mass media", and I would challenge anyone to find any reliable source that describes a scholar here as a "mass media theorist" rather than a "media theorist." We should follow reliable sources in categorizing articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Google Scholar gives 35 hits for "mass media theorist"
Not any of the people we have articles on. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. JSTOR gives gives 1 hit for "mass media theorist"
Not a person with a Wikipedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Google Books gives 91 hits for "mass media theorist"
Not any of the authors we have articles on. Contrast that with the 568 GBooks hits for "media theorist" (presumably 477 if you subtract the 91 that are presumably mass media theorist). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that while the COMMONNAME is "media theorists", the use of "mass media theorists" adds a terse but helpful disambiguator from theorists of e.g. storage media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a theorist? And is there such a reader who requires such help? And by your logic don't we need even further "helpful" disambiguation to clarify that these are not theorists of media that discusses the mass of objects? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such distinction is not necessary. The category is for "theorists about media" because "media" is inclusive of all "mass" forms (television, radio, newspaper, magazine, etc.) Senator2029 “Talk” 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, based on the fact that media can also refer to materials used in art, and that there are quite a few people who have expressed theories about their use. Josef Albers, for example, is a media theorist, though he has little if anything to do with mass media. Note that Media is a quite comprehensive disambiguation page. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 4 June 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.

Eponymous Japanese voice actor management company categories[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 all Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems an unnecessary level of categorization for one subcategory each of voice actors. All the subcats all share the parent Category:Japanese voice actors by agency, while articles on the companies are sufficiently categorized in Category:Japanese voice actor management companies, without a need for this extra layer of categorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The categories have few names. Better to include the concerning names in broader category. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:32, 6 June 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:Football Federation Australia Hall of Fame inductees[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 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Football Federation Australia Hall of Fame was created in 1999 and recognizes the lifetime achievement of association football/soccer people (as opposed to Australian rules football). Winners are required to be retired so this award is inherently reflecting earlier accomplishments. I went through half the articles and but most of them don't even mention the award in the text, although a healthy minority mention it in passing and a few even in the lede, so it doesn't seem generally defining. (All of them had Template:Football Federation Australia Hall of Fame though.) The articles are under more specific subcategories of the Category:Soccer people in Australia tree that better aid navigation. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 4 June 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:Canadian Curling Hall of Fame inductees[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. bibliomaniac15 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Canadian Curling Hall of Fame recognizes the lifetime achievement of athletes. Like most halls of fame, it reflects rather than amplifies their fame so it doesn't seem defining and the articles generally mention it in passing. All of the articles are already in Category:Canadian curling champions, Category:Brier champions, Category:Canadian curling coaches and other more specific Canadian curling categories that better aid navigation. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We recently deleted a American and Scandinavian curling halls of fame categories with similar issues here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 90% of curlers in the world are Canadian, thus the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame can be seen as the top curling hall of fame in the world. It's one of the criteria for notability for curlers (WP:CURLING). It's the equivalent of the Hockey Hall of Fame for the NHL (which has its own category for membership). It is not the same as the US or Swedish halls. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT frequently uses halls of fame to save time with determining notability for athletes in the article space: "If they are in hall of fame X, they must have done something meaningful in X sport earlier in their lives." The vast majority of HOFs reflect rather than create that fame though so the award is not defining in the category space while the original sources of that fame (Olympics, Brier, etc.) are very defining.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another OCAWARD category. So your telling us we should keep this category because "90% of curlers in the world are Canadian, thus the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame can be seen as the top curling hall of fame in the world." This still doesn't even remotely counteract the OCAWARD policy at all. And your statement a clear example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. If were going keep this we might as well make all of the other ones for different lower percentage countries then. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; presumably, these folks are notable for something notable that earned them admission to the Hall of Fame? Those events are proper categories per WP:OCAWARD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCAWARD. Another NN award category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several other categories already exists to deal with the subject. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:11, 9 June 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_June_4&oldid=967184302"