Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27[edit]

Category:Science fiction genres[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 on any merging proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I cannot understand their difference. CN1 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new proposal is the same as the first proposal above, just worded differently--I chose to do so, based on advice from admin Fayenatic, because it might help to understand the proposal better.
What is important, is, that in the final outcome, only one category remains, and its name is not Category:Science fiction by genre, but instead Category:Science fiction genres. I think his way; not exactly because of the name of Category:Fantasy genres, but because I believe -- as principle -- that its beneficial to avoid "by X" in the naming, wherever possible. CN1 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The two categories serve completely different purposes." I dont believe that.
"Category:Science fiction genres should be for articles about specific genres." I concur.
"Category:Science fiction by genre should contain the stories themselves" Wishful thinking--at this point in time the category does not do, what you described you want it to do. Both contain the same: science fiction genres.
You are envisioning something like Category:Science fiction works by genre. Subcategories would need to have the general form of--for example-- Category:Science fantasy works. But the science fiction subgenres do not have subcategoris which group all their works together, so it would a bad decision to build a category branch like this, in my opinion.
CN1 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge subcategories, because with the subcategories included there is not too much difference between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: please comment again, now that the nomination has been revised. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to neutral, the two categories don't have to be merged, but this is definitely the better way of merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (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:Kelly Wearstler[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. While there was little participation in the discussion, the argument made is convincing enough to close it. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. Even the eponym itself hasn't actually been filed here -- the only content this actually has is a "Books by Kelly Wearstler" subcategory. As always, every author of books does not automatically get an eponymous category just to parent her "Books by" category -- it would be fine if there were a substantial number of other articles to file here, but not if the only other thing that could be added to it is her BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2017 (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:Anthozoa of Algeria[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Eunicella verrucosa) is found in a particular country is WP:NON-DEFINING of the species. Example previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_23#Category:Mammals_of_Algeria. Note: a merge to Category:Fauna of the Mediterranean is also a possibility. DexDor (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2017 (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:David (Michelangelo)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Cross linking in the articles should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2017 (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:Arthropods 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is categorizing species etc by small (on a global scale) countries which is generally WP:NON-DEFINING - some of the articles make no mention of the country they are categorized for (e.g. I've recently removed Cucujus cinnaberinus from several country categories). Example previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_2#Category:Spiders_by_European_country. Note: Some of these categories were created by NotWith/Nono64. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – fully agree with nom. Oculi (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The biota of UK are fewer than continental Europe, because the country is colder, but few species are indigenous. Unfortunately, there are no robust definitions for Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (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:Star Wars 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: delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. This contains lots of actors etc (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson) who have appeared in many films. Listing the films in the text of the actor's article and listing the main cast of each film in the film's article is the way to do things - we don't need categories like this as well (the people are well categorized by Category:20th-century American male actors etc). DexDor (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT. We do not categorize people by individual film (or even film franchise) that they happened to appear in — that would lead to extreme category bloat, as actors appear in many films throughout their lifetime. Samuel L. Jackson is a particularly fine example of a guy who's famous for acting in far, far too many films to be defined solely or even primarily by the fact that a few of them were Star Wars films — but that applies to many other people here too. And we doubly don't mix the actors willy-nilly in a "franchise people" category that also includes the directors and producers and writers and special effects technicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title could also be referring to Category:Star Wars characters as well, though there are nonhuman characters in that category. Being a human character in that franchise is not really a defining trait—it’s science fiction set in some fictional galaxy. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since when does "people" translate to "humans" as a species? Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since The Eleventh Hour. "Am I people? Do I even look like people?" [1] – Fayenatic London 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Classic example of a performer category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 7 December 2017 (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:People banned from entering China[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the people in this category (e.g. Justin Bieber, Harrison Ford) being banned from China is WP:NON-DEFINING. A list (which could also explain the background of each persons banning) may be appropriate. Other subcats of Category:Excluded people also look dubious - e.g. Steve Rosenberg was banned from entering Ukraine for 1 day - is that really defining? DexDor (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete In two cases (Ford and Gere) it's simply derivative of some sort of support for the Dalai Lama; one suspects that some similar political expression is the cause for the other two. I have my doubts that "holders of political opinions disliked by the PRC" is a reasonable categorization, but in any case, that's not what we have here. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DexDor: I had recently raised issues on Category_talk:People_banned_from_entering_the_United_States#Criteria regarding the criteria of that category. Will you support the deletion of that category as well? Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00:, I would support its deletion. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and categorization should only be for permanent characteristics (not for current status). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Refusals tend to relate to particular visa applications in particular circumstances. Some bans will be the result of criminal convictions; others of expressed opinions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (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:Songs written by D.O.E.[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:Songs written by John Maultsby. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems weird to have a category about a subject whose article has been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.O.E. Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator mistakes the different purposes of an article and a category. An article contains text relating to something that is notable. A category groups together items by significant similarities. The songwriters of a song would be a significant similarity, whether the songwriter is notable or not. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as per Starcheer below. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Songs written by John Maultsby since D.O.E. isn't notable enough for an article and the person mentioned in these articles is a songwriter named John Maultsby. Should Maultsby be notable enough for an article someday and the article is called D.O.E. per WP:COMMONNAME, the category can be renamed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't rename, since John Maultsby was merely one of many co-writers of the songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:49, 27 November 2017 (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:Epic science fiction films[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria for inclusion. Not likely to be one, since "epic" doesn't have a crisp definition. Mikeblas (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning oppose but the whole Category:Epic films structure is problematic, not because epic film isn't something of a genre (or at least style) of film-making, but because the word is used so sloppily in advertising and the like. Surely there are SF films that fit into the genre; perhaps the category would vanish per WP:SMALLCAT were it pruned, but I'm not convinced that the imprecise boundary is reason for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Epic science-fiction" is not a well defined cross-genre set, unlike "biblical epics" or "epic fantasy" (aka high fantasy), which are cohesive and distinct sub-genres of the epic. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Betty Logan's reasoning and nominator's point that there is no clear definition of "epic sci fi films" –Joeyconnick (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small genre with no definition, so how does it help people out? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2017 (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:Galaxy Express 999[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Comment: The category now contains 5 articles, not sure though if the fifth article belongs there. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Falcon: It looks like with your previous comment you are supporting the nomination without explicitly saying so. Is that a correct interpretation? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fifth article is indeed not relevant. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (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.

Military physicians[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 all. No consensus on merging at this time, that may need to be dealt with on its own. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the upmerge of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina military physicians since it only has one entry. We may well find more entries. And I don't see why this should be the only category with a single entry which is to be abolished. There are many entries in national catorisation of all kinds which only have one entry. Given the history of Bosnia it is actually quite likely that there are more military physicians to be added to this category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and also rename the Bosnian one. No problem with having a small subcat in a 'by nationality' scheme. Oculi (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most - Possibly not the American one, as physician seems to be local usage. Removing small categories (by upmerging) may need to be a separate exercise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in the USA I don't see much use of the term Military physician. Military surgeon is more common there, and in some other places, but the scope of military medicine has changed. Not so much surgery but more psychiatry. I'm happy for these all to be renamed military doctors. Rathfelder (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2017 (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/2017_November_27&oldid=1138411402"