Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22 October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Coos County, New Hampshire[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, keep redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale. This is a procedural nomination, made without recommendation.
It follows a series of incomplete out-of-process moves by @JPxG and @Epicgenius, and a similarly messy incomplete attempt at a CFD nomination. Both editors acted a little WP:RECKLESSly, but their undoubted good faith is clearly demonstrated by their courtesy in promptly accepting my suggestion of withdrawing the incomplete CfD.
This nomination includes all the categories named after Coös County, New Hampshire. It allows single a decision to made on whether the categories should follow the use of an umlaut in the title of the head article Coös County, New Hampshire, while ensuring that whatever decision is made, the categories are named consistently with each other — i.e. the umlaut should be used on all of them or none of them.
I have no preference either way, and at this state I don't intend to form a view on which usage is correct. My concern is solely that:
  1. whatever format is chosen should be applied consistently to all of the relevant categories,
    and
  2. the proposal should be properly notified so that any objections can be considered before ~300 pages are recategorised.
Note that I propose that per WP:CATRED, any move should retain a redirect from the unaccented title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging. Categories all tagged, in these 29 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, title of the county's page and pages for municipalities inside it, as well as the county's website; and also apologize again for the ridiculous comedy-of-errors CfD nomination (which was the result of misreading advice on how to interpret a policy page, and subsequently recategorizing every single page from every subcategory while waiting for someone else with extendedmover to relocate the category pages). jp×g 22:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifications. WikiProject New Hampshire has been notified.[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The categories should be renamed to conform with the title of the main article, Coös County, New Hampshire, which uses a diaresis over the second "o". I personally have no view over the title of the main article itself, but support moving the categories in accordance with the title of the article. I also apologize for compounding the errors - I was attempting to help JPxG move these pages, and accidentally made the situation worse. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Coös County, Support matching the category names to the article name. By law, the name of the county is "Coos". The "Coos" spelling is also much more common in my experience living in New Hampshire (albeit outside of Coos County). However, this is CFD, not RM, and the article title's been stable for 10 years. The category names should match the article, whatever it is called. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The article seems to have been stable at the present name since 2010. Oculi (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. PS - I'm pretty sure it's a diaeresis, not an umlaut. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the version with the diaresis over the second "o" is the preferred spelling REname all to that, but leave redirect as it is not easy to type ö, so that the version without the diacritical is a likely search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change in categories until the original Coos County article goes through RM. The article was originally titled "Coos" but was moved about 10 years ago without using the RM process. Supporters of the diaeresis in New Hampshire largely take their lead from the practice of the Coös County Democrat newspaper, and the county website has gradually increased its use over the years, but is still not fully consistent. State law (as cited above), as well as all federal maps and the Geographic Names Information System use only "Coos". The spelling in state law should govern. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The county's official website saying Coös County is the northern most and the largest county in the State of New Hampshire. Coös County is a spin-off from Grafton County by an act approved by the Legislature in 1803 that took effect March 5, 1805 as well as using that spelling on their annual county reports doesn't count? jp×g 09:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually no, that does not count. The discussion is not about the official name but about the common name. But it would be better to have that discussion on the article talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This nomination just proves I'll defer to the article space even when it's clearly wrong regarding common name. Coös County, New Hampshire was boldy renamed but, since it was a decade ago, the main article is stable and should be blindly followed. If and when the main article is moved through an RM, then by all means change back. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:25, 1 November 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.

Cfd French Air and Space Force renaming[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 17 November 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:Stripping in film[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 to Category:Films about striptease. The contents will need to be purged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it more clear that this category should be applied only when stripping is a significant feature of the film rather than an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Your suggestion of an alternate rename has gained traction. Does that change your iVote? RevelationDirect (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "about" category; who decides objectively how much stripping merits inclusion, then what reliable sources tell us its at least that much? And really, is having a strip scene (even when you cannot see the actress/actor naked) defining for a movie? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not the same. You can have a film that has a portion featuring stripping but then you can have a film that's all about stripping like the movie Hustlers. A film can have a striptease scene but not be oriented around the topic such as in the film We're the millers. The current category name fits a higher of caliber of films. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:CATDEF, we shouldn't have a category for films that have a striptease scene but aren't oriented around the topic. DonIago (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to Films about striptease – The current category name is vague and overly inclusive, and simply depicting striptease (like We're the Millers) is non-defining... you could just as logically have "Car chases in film" or "Lighthouses in film", which would also be not useful. However, if renamed as proposed and redefined to identify a major topic, it's as meaningful and useful as any other Category:Films by topic, provided there are enough to make it worthwhile. (A quick glance at the members suggests to me that there are plenty.) It shouldn't be any more difficult to identify from RS (or even Plot) whether striptease is an important subject of a given film, than it is to identify a film's genre, and we do that all the time. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason A. Quest But when do we apply to those "other categories" ? Like the category Category:Films about drugs. Movies are included in the category where that is not the main plot device used in the film. Movies featured in the category where either there is barely any mention of drug use or distribution or none at all. Like the movie The Life. Or where it is not what the film is all about like the film Yelling to the sky is included and I personally watch this movie and it is more centered to the struggles of a young urban teenager dealing with social issues around her. We can't have these included with movies like Pain & Gain or New Jack City where the film is actually legitimately about drugs. And I found these errors from some minor ddigging through the categories. Either these rules apply to these film categories or they don't. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that a film category includes films that don't prominently feature the category element, you're within your rights to remove the films from the category. Anyone who wants the category included merely needs to provide some sourced discussion within the article that supports the inclusion of the category...though personally a plot summary that makes it obvious something is a strong element of a film is usually good enough for me. As I mentioned above, films shouldn't be categorized based on purely incidental elements per WP:CATDEF. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: if there are problems with other categories, fix those other categories. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:47, 26 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:Photonovels[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 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different terms for the same thing. (I'd also suggest splitting it into two words, as in the article title Photo comics.) Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Unclear distinction. Dimadick (talk) 16:55, 23 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:Whale watching locations[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. I have listed the current contents at Talk:Whale watching in case user:Grutness or any other editor may wish to ensure that the list in the article is expanded as necessary, or add "see also" links to the list where appropriate.– Fayenatic London 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That somewhere is a good place to watch whales is a non-defining characteristic for many of the articles in the category (e.g. Andenes, Cowichan Bay) and some (e.g. Magic Point) make no mention of whales.  This is also subjective - how often do whales need to be seen for a place to become a whale watching location?  Example previous similar CFDs:  windsurfing, railfanning.  For info: there is Whale_watching#Locations.
Those articles that are specifically about whale watching (currently just Depoe Bay Whale Watching Center) should be moved up to Category:Whale watching. DexDor (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge per nom, not a defining characteristic for the majority of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per my comments on the other whale watching category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and pare back contents if necessary. This nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding. It is not for places that are "good places to watch whales", but for ones in which whale-watching is a significant part of the local tourism industry, such as Kaikoura, Andenes (yes), Depoe Bay Whale Watching Center, Hervey Bay, Wilhelmina Bay, Shiretoko Peninsula, Salt Cay, Turks Islands, and Húsavik. As such, the industry is a defining characteristic of the places, making it a prime reason for a category. It also separates it from the other CfDs mentioned, as windsurfing and railfanning are not industries so much as hobbies. Listifying would be a viable, but less attractive alternative.Grutness...wha? 05:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many problems with that - 1. "a significant part" is subjective, 2. Few of the articles in the category would meet that condition (most state that whale watching takes place, but not how significant it is to the local economy), 3. It's not a permanent characteristic (in most of these places whale watching tourism wasn't significant 50 years ago and it may decline in the future), 4. Why should the tourism industry have that special status (we don't have for example "Category:Places where sheep farming is a significant part of the local agriculture industry")?, 5. All 3 of the leisure activities mentioned support economic activities (e.g. windsurfing equipment/training and railfan magazines). DexDor (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Whale watching is the primary industry in several of these places (e.g., Kaikoura and Hervey Bay) as such, I think that "significant" is not at all subjective in those cases. 2) Problems with the articles should not be reflected in attacks on the category - if there are problems with the articles then fix them. 3) This one's such an meaningless argument I don't know where to begin with it. Whale watching wasn't an industry 50 years ago. Should we delete all categories related to websites, blogs, streaming services, etc because they didn't exist 50 years ago and - given the nature of WP:CRYSTAL we can't guarantee that any of them will still exist in 50 years time? How about categories connected with e-sports? Or - far more comparable, perhaps, Category:Bungee jumping sites, Category:Mountain biking venues, or Category:BMX tracks? 4) The tourism industry has some special status because it is far more diverse than many other industries. Even so, we have many similar categories for other industries - Category:Fish hatcheries, Category:Wine regions, Category:Tea estates in India, and Category:Date palm orchards would be a handful of the agriculture related ones you were looking for. 5) If you can find a place where windsurfing equipment manufacture or railfan magazines are a major part of that place's economy in the way that whale watching is in somewhere like Kaikoura, then fine, I'll agree with you. If not, then I stand by my comment that whale watching is far more defining to the characteristics of a place, and will still support the existence of categories such as Category:Rail transport magazines and Category:Windsurfing equipment, which seem the category equivalents. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1&5) If this category was limited to places where whale watching is the primary industry then most (possibly all) of the current articles should be removed from the category and the category should be renamed to make it clear. We don't usually categorize locations by their primary industry (and it wouldn't work well as a categorization scheme because many places have no clear primary industry).
(2) We can't categorize articles based on what an improved version of the article might say!
(3) A website should, of course, be categorized as a website - just like a lighthouse (for example) should be categorized as a lighthouse. Categorizing towns, islands etc for an activity that has sometimes taken place there is very different. Category:BMX tracks is for articles such as Olympic BMX Centre (and see CFDs such as this).
(4) "The tourism industry has some special status ..." may be your opinion but afaik tourism has no special status in WP categorization. The "similar categories" you refer to are not similar at all; they are mainly categorizing articles that are specifically about hatcheries etc, not categories articles about towns etc. DexDor (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The category's sole defender had made some strong arguments which have neither been disproved nor accepted by others yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and answer number 2 are most relevant imo. An alternative solution to tackle that problem is purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's only one article in the category that's specifically about whale watching. DexDor (talk) 07:53, 28 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:Kangleipak[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 categories for Manipur and keep a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Kangleipak is an alternative or specifically ethnic POV term for Manipur and its former Manipur (princely state). These categories are just duplicate WP:POVFORKs of Category:Manipur and Category:History of Manipur and so on. Gotitbro (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article Manipur (princely state) it was a deliberate name change early in the 18th century. Still support merge, if only per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, Merge but leave redirect as it is a credible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kangleipak is native name of Manipur the name Manipur was adopted only after late 17th century, more effectively after 18th century,there are many historical facts and records for thisꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 13:08, 2 November 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:Võnnu Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 23 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:Ülenurme Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 23 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:Rõngu Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 23 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:Puhja Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 23 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:Mäksa Parish[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 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 23 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:Konguta Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 23 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:Haaslava Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 23 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:Rannu Parish[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 parents. MER-C 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One freakin' entry for the rural municipality! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 23 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.

Miscellaneous TV/Film character redirects to lists[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 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 13#Category:Miscellaneous television episode redirects to lists St3095 (?) 04:31, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_23&oldid=989622534"