Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:Bengali sportspersons[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) 00:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Usual naming is sportspeople. Also note the contrast to Category:Sportspeople from West Bengal. SFB 19:53, 8 February 2015 (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:Basketball games in which Michael Jordan played[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other basketball game categories by player, and I don't see that this is defining for such games. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are an unusual number of notable games in which this person played, much moreso than with most other basketball players. That was why I created the category. In fact, there is a book about his "greatest" games, Michael Jordan's 50 Greatest Games by Bob Condor. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not defining for the game, and a bad idea. (And don't upmerge; dumping articles with some vague connection with Jordan into Category:Michael Jordan is even worse.) Oculi (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you would want to upmerge most of these to the parent cat Category:Michael Jordan. Why does nobody ever consider upmerging? - Bossanoven (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments before and don't upmerge for the same reason. Possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't upmerge - if anything, purge the MJ category of articles like David Falk. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OC#PERF -- That usually applies to actors and TV persons, but there is no reason for it notto apply here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Peterkingiron. This would just lead to overcategorization of a such articles of notable games (particularly championship and All-Star games) by putting similar categories by every player who played in them. Upmerging doesn't resolve the problem of overcategorization. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without upmerge. The potential for category bloat, as similar categories are created for every basketball player who ever played in more than one notable game, is too extreme. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to start this trend for athletes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (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:Napa Valley College[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: KKeep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry, for the college itself, plus one subcategory. ...William 18:12, 8 February 2015 (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:False pipefish[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) 00:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed "Solenostomus" because the animals have several common names, and the primary page has been renamed as the genus name. Mr Fink (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support category name should match primary page title. I was about to manually recategorize these until I came across the CfD notice. Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (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:Winners of European Car of the Year[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having won one of these awards is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a car model (e.g. Fiat Uno). See also WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There are lists at European_Car_of_the_Year#Results, Canadian Car of the Year, Car_of_the_Year_Japan#Recipients_of_the_award and Indian_Car_of_the_Year#Winners. DexDor (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2015 (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:Ancient Roman provinces in Africa[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 the first, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the same format as Category:Provinces of Roman Gaul. Note that for Hispania the adjective Roman is not necessary, since Hispania is a Roman term as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The change from Africa to North Africa perhaps makes little difference since there were no sub-Sahara Roman provinces, but having history of North Africa as a parent to the present name is unobjectionable. The Romans called it Hispania before their conquest of it. Furthermore, the modern Latin name for Spain is still Hispania, so that the target would cover the provinces of Vandal Spain (and other periods). For Anatolia, I do not see the reason to change. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first oppose the other two. Anatolia and Hispania are broad terms, so the Provinces of Hispania category will not work at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (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 Moon 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed at CFDS because of this Cfd, the previous Cfd never really addressed the difference between this name and the parent category, Category:Moon in fiction, except that it "more closely matches the naming of its parent." Well, close but no cigar. Rename per WP:THE, and to match category structure Category:Moon and such siblings as Category:Moon in art and main article, Moon. There's no reason whatsoever for the film category to differ and the closing of the 2012 Cfd was a poor one, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be in line with the quoted discussion to rename in the opposite way, namely Category:Moon in fiction to Category:The Moon in fiction, because "the" moon is something else than "any" moon. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you that it needs to be consistent. But again the main article doesn't use a The, and there is the matter of Category:Moon in art, as well. So let's have common sense and consistency, one or another, at long last, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, forgot to add: I do disagree rather strongly with "any moon" argument. I believe the reason why our main article and category is simply "Moon" is because there isn't any real confusion at all: Category:Moon is a subcat Category:Moons for that very reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I considered too, that's why I just gave it as a comment, not as an oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the rest of the category tree and the article. In principle, I'm not opposed to a move to "the Moon", but I'd like that to be a move that unifies the tree and the main article, not one that applies names inconsistently. SFB 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether or not the Moon is featured in a film - whether documentary, SciFi or Werewolf or Romantically is just a mish-mash of coincidence and trivia; what reliable sources will be guiding the placement or not of articles into this category, or are we just going to do it subjectively with our own WP:Original research.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (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:Slope landforms of Wales[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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary layer of categorization (grouping together cliffs and quarries). This is the only "Slope landforms of <country>" category. Note: slope landform is currently a redlink. DexDor (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion and upmerge. Similar to "Aeolian landforms..." below, this is an unnecessary and esoteric subcategorisation with insufficient articles to justify it. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2015 (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:Wikipedia-related 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: rename to Category:Lists about Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the category makes it look like a wikipedia administration category (like Category:Wikipedia-related projects), but the parent categories are for encyclopedia articles. We normally categorize wp admin pages and articles separately. Note: I've removed pages like Wikipedia:Celebrities who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia from this category; it currently only contains 2 pages. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or rename as proposed below (note: the category now has 4 members). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An "unauthorised" modification was made to the nomination on 16th Feb[1]. It's now been repaired. DexDor (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic lists (i.e. excluding lists that are part of Wikipedia administration) are categorized under Category:Articles - e.g. Category:NASA lists is under Category:NASA. The page you linked to is a disambiguation page. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Sorry, I don't understand how the things you wrote above are relevant. Are you saying Category talk:Wikipedia-related lists should not have a banner for wp:WikiProject Lists? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC) In your example above you say Category:NASA lists is under Category:NASA, which is true, but it also a child of Category:Lists by organization and should never be merged into Category:NASA. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that this appears to be the only category beginning with "Category:Wikipedia-related ____" that's populated by articles and lists as opposed to administrative categories and the like (templates, wikipedia namespace, etc.) To me, a simple rename fixes it rather than splitting it in two. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am only seeing 4 list-articles in Category:Wikipedia-related lists and all of them are clearly lists:
What am I missing? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem (and, to be clear, it's not a huge problem). Similarly named categories are administrative whereas this one is based on article subject. e.g. Category:Wikipedia-related projects, Category:Wikipedia-related user templates. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Ottawahitec's question raised earlier: it's up to WikiProject Lists to decide whether (categories of) wikipedia administration lists are within the scope of their project or not. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2015 (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:Classical topography[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, it only contains a single child category. It doesn't require upmerging to Category:Classical studies because the content of this category is in the tree of Category:Classical studies already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2015 (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:Aeolian landforms of the United Kingdom[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting

Category:Aeolian landforms of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Anglesey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Ceredigion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Gwynedd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Snowdonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of the Vale of Glamorgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's no reason to create this category tree, which here is effectively a duplication of the Category:Dunes of the United Kingdom series. There are no other "Aeolian landforms of FOOland" series. Sionk (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – this whole subtree contains 5 articles, namely the 5 dunes in Wales discussed below. Oculi (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content except dunes which is dealt in a separate CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom so these will match the rest of the landform category structure. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2015 (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:Dunes of Anglesey[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: upmerge each to Category:Dunes of Wales and the appropriate "Geography of FOO" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting

Category:Dunes of Anglesey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Ceredigion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Gwynedd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Snowdonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of the Vale of Glamorgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge content to Category:Dunes of Wales. Unnecessary subcategorisation by a serial over-categoriser which is not carried out for England or Scotland. Sionk (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2015 (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/2015_February_8&oldid=1138408581"