Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Hulk (comics) in other 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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With the parent article being renamed, I see no need for disambiguation. I can't see what this could be confused for, and it's already been determined to be the primary topic anyway. The subcats should all follow suit as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - parent category is Category:Hulk (comics) (although attempts have been made to move it, to judge from the history). I would certainly have opposed the page move had I seen it. Oculi (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parent article is Hulk in other media. The page move was widely supported. What would have been your basis in opposing it? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category names follow the format in the category. "There's no need for such a primarytopic grab on such an ambiguous term" per Dicklyon. Hulk is a Brazilian footballer to much of the world. Further, Hulk (comics) in other media makes some sense whereas Hulk in other media makes no sense (other than what?). Oculi (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Brazilian football player got his name from the character of the Hulk. Do you really think that any English speaker is going to see a category named Hulk TV series and think that it's for the football player? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also shaken my heads at the outcome of other Requested Moves that I see for the first time here in CFD. I should start following WP:RM#C more closely. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except the video games category. The character is called "The Hulk" or "The Incredible Hulk". The category should be renamed to Category:Video games based on the Hulk. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Support All/Correct Venue per WP:C2D There was an RM discussion here that may have been brilliant or may have been a total travesty. Either way, CFD is the wrong venue to overturn that decision and having articles names mismatch category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Massively ambiguous title such as this impede accurate categorisation.
Regardless of whether the RM was wonderfully policy-based or a blatant primarytopic grab, the ambiguity remains. And @RevelationDirect, please do read WP:C2D. It doesn't apply in cases of ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do see a lot of ambiguity in the article space with this rename but--not only is it not transferred to the category space--but it dissipates. For instance, if I'm reading the The Incredible Hulk Returns article and see Category:Hulk films at the bottom, it's meaning will be clear without me clicking on tje cat. Similarly, if I'm navigating from another category, say Category:Films based on Marvel Comics, I'll likely also know what the subcategory is referring to without clicking on it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect that presumes that the only place category titles are encountered is when they are already present at the bottom of articles. However, there are many other situations in which readers and editors encounter category titles, where that contextual info will not be readily available.
I see no zero benefit to readers or editors in deliberately introducing avoidable ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (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:Royal works by Sirindhorn[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 delete. WP:G7 per request of creator @Thyj, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. The scholarly Thai princess Sirindhorn doesn't seem to have written many notable publications. And if we did want a category for her works, the adjective "Royal" is pointless aggrandisement. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (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.

Dubbed television programs[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Television programs by language, and to better describe the content. The omission of the word "television" makes the scope obscure; it could include films, but it excludes TV programs which are not part of a series).
This could have been nominated as a speedy per WP:C2C, but I thought it best to bring it to a full discussion in case there are any objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: About half of these cats have been created by me to fill redlinks in Special:WantedCategories. I have no particular view either way on their merits, but the reason I created the cats rather than removing their entries on the articles was that we have a parallel structure of Category:Dubbed films with 48 subcategories. As with these TV cats, all of them relate to South Asian languages.
Is there any reason to regard dubbing of TV show as any more or less defining than dubbing of a film? If not, shouldn't deletion be considered for both sets together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I suspect that these categories have been populated more by enthusiasts of particular languages than by people interested in improving categorization of films/shows (an editor of the latter type wouldn't have left them as redlinks).
Note: Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization nor MOS:TVCATS (although the latter is very brief) mention categorization by what languages a film/show is dubbed into. TVCATS does say "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network." and categorization by dubbing languages is somewhat akin to that.
It's non-defining for both films and TV shows and I don't think the this CFD not covering films means we can't delete the categories for dubbed TV shows (and consider films in a subsequent CFD). DexDor (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, @DexDor. You make a good case, but I'm staying neutral on deletion. My main concern is that if these categories exist, they should be named less ambiguously. I will make a procedural nomination of the film cats as well, so that they can be considered together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 8 March 2019 (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:Cameo Records 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Category:Cameo_Records_singles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cameo Records was a record company in the 1920s that closed in 1928. The songs listed with this category are incorrectly linking to this page rather than to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Cameo-Parkway Records released songs as Cameo, Parkway, and Cameo-Parkway in the 50s and 60s so the WP articles should be linked Cameo-Parkway Records's category instead as Cameo Records and Cameo-Parkway Records are two completely separate companies.

I am thinking the songs listed under this category need to be moved to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records and this category as there are no WP articles with songs released under Cameo Records in the 1920s. LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are miscategorized, then recategorize them to the correct category. If that then empties the category it would be eligible for WP:C1 speedy deletion. ~ GB fan 11:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried to recatergorize them, but the creator of the category reverted the edits. I also already tried to do speedy deletion and it was denied and I was referred here.LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we already have Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.:This is a vexatious nomination. See the discussion on the talk page. Firstly, the introduction to the Cameo-Parkway article presently reads, 'Cameo-Parkway Records was the parent company of Cameo Records and Parkway Records, which were major American Philadelphia-based record labels from 1956 (for Cameo) and 1958 (for Parkway) to 1967.' So that establishes Cameo as a record label. So the main article confirms that there was a 'record label' called Cameo between 1956 and 1967, but because one editor won't accept this we have to go through this farrago of a nomination. The category these belong in is 'Singles by Record LABEL' NOT by company. There is a difference. Finally a 'record label' is a trade mark, device or marketing system used by a record company which was printed on the record, an example is here (others are on the talk page, or you can find your own easy enough). Image of Charlies Grace's Butterfly single showing the Cameo logo of the time.
This give us two options, we rename the holding category as Singles albums etc by Record Company and merge all the subsidiary labels back into the record company, or we accept the category is correct as 'Singles by Record Label' FWIW Whether Cameo has a separate article is irrelevant to this discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Cameo Records was an American record label that flourished in the 1920s." I most misspoke by calling it a record company in my oringal post. It was also a record label. Also, I get you created this category, but can you please stop making person remarks about me and stick to the discussion on the category?LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly fine with as a subcat. I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion since Cameo Records itself is a different label. The reason I posted this is I just worry there will end up being an article created that is a single release under Cameo Records, but they are now being categorized with singles from Cameo-Parkway Records.LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments in further of suggestions above. This is far from the only example along these lines and needs sorting out, which I could/should have done many times over the past years, but then so should others, and I did suggest to LongLiveMusic it was a preferred way to take this discussion. I would have had no problem if somebody had added to the category text, something along the lines of 'Cameo was a label used by the Cameo-Parkway Record company to issue disks between 1956 and 1967 to solve this problem, but to incorrectly recategorize to fit an editor's whim. That's a no-no in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an incorrect blue link on Bye Bye Birdie (to the 20s Cameo). Oculi (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I've fixed it now. Incorrect blue links are a major problem at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has to so with the possibility that confusion will arise and possibly miscategorisation unless there is some dab added to Category:Cameo Records singles, because the article Cameo Records is about a different entity. Eg it could be Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, with a redirect Cameo Records (1956-67) to Cameo-Parkway Records. That is, Category:Cameo Records singles is ambiguous and should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These singles were released on the Cameo label, not the Cameo-Parkway label, what renaming are you suggesting? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, or similar. Oculi (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the redirect Cameo Records (1956) and now suggest that Cameo Records be moved to Cameo Records (1922) (founded in 1922 acc to infobox) and Cameo Records be recreated as a dab page. I suggest Category:Cameo Records (1956) singles as a suitable name for the category under discussion. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, I think that would be a good solution to dab the two to prevent confusion. That way if someone is searching for Cameo of the 50s they are not going to be incorrectly sent to the Cameo of the 20s which is what currently happens. This way viewers know the Cameo of the 50s is part of the Cameo-Parkway parent company.LongLiveMusic (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2019 (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:Māngere[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An excessive and unnecessary subcategory of Category:Suburbs of Auckland. No other suburb of Auckland has their own (sub)category. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2019 (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/2019_March_7&oldid=889273084"