Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:Births in Baranagar[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) 11:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise people by location of birth, which is WP:NONDEF attribute, but only by notable association (see WP:COP).
This is the only category of birth by location. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Effectively means People from Baranagar. Brandmeistertalk 22:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; we've settled on "from" and presumably anyone born somewhere is "from" there (regardless of how transitory one's stay there may be). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 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:Women architects who own/owned a firm[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) 11:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: another cat exists Category:Women architects who own a firm. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category is part of an odd set of bad categorisations done in the last few days by various new editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 12 March 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:LGBT nurses[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) 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS: This is a seemingly arbitrary combination. LGBT status has no bearing on working as a nurse or vice versa. Cheers, gnu57 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one."
It's easy to create such intersection categories, but unless we apply the criteria these intersection cats will proliferate and cause clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 12 March 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:American LGBT-related animated web series[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. MER-C 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With very few non-American equivalents to categorize as such yet, LGBT-related animated web series do not need to be subcategorized by nationality -- and with just eight articles here, neither Category:American LGBT-related web series nor Category:American animated web series have any pressing need to be crosscategorized for the intersection either. Note that the articles should also be upmerged to those parent categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my nomination statement expressly said "Note that the articles should also be upmerged to those parent categories", which means deleting this would not remove this from any categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 17 March 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:Dungeons & Dragons planes of existence[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 the articles (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. The categories aren't actually particularly relevant because they're general categories on the campaign settings of D&D rather than lists of locations. The "Dungeons & Dragons extraplanar creatures‎" wouldn't be relevant to the locations either. Also upmerge to "Fictional dimensions." TTN (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 20 March 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:Talk namespace categories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:Talk namespace categories

Category:Dungeons & Dragons planets[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: selectively merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only Abeir-Toril and World of Eberron are articles directly about the fictional worlds, so this only has two relevant articles. Also upmerge those two to "Fictional planets." TTN (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge for now, with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so planets. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 20 March 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:Forgotten Realms locations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:Forgotten Realms locations

Category:Greyhawk locations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:Greyhawk locations

Category:Men fighting over women[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) 11:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bizarre category, WP:NONDEFINING. Brandmeistertalk 18:30, 11 March 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:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by continent[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 rename, which has already been implemented. Next time please add something like this to the list of nominations for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom and recent name change of related page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Is this really necesssary for something so simple? Jalen Folf (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would close this right now as uncontroversial move and have already done some of the edits as most of the categories were tagged as a redirect. But running out of time now. Will carry on tomorow, unless someone else closes. Agathoclea (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename, SNOW after renaming all the other articles. Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by continent has several subcategories (and sub-subcategories) that need moving, too. --mfb (talk) 23:20, 11 March 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:Harare Polytechnic alumni[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. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories are the same. Coyets (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LL has been participating in CFD for long enough to know very well that consistency is a key principle of category naming. This attempt to use yet another discussion to try to break a convention for no stated reason is WP:Tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful to BHG if she could clarify the terms of her personal accusation: please specify which convention am I trying to break, the Indian convention, the American convention or the UK/Irish convention? Having done that, it would be useful for this and other discussions if BHG could go on to explain why the convention that is about to be broken has claims to universal standards, as opposed to local usage. Lastly, having identified the universal wiki standard convention, what proposals does BHG advance for remedying the non conforming tree structures? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 21 March 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.

Fiction set in years and decades of the 10th century[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT: small, with little or potential for growth.
These are the only by-year and by-decade categories in each of their sets for periods before 1000 AD. That is the usual cut-off point for by-year and by-decade categories, and I don't see any reason to make fictional settings an exception.
Note that I spotted these when I converted the fiction category header templates to a parameterless format. This caused {{Fiction set in year category}} and {{Fiction set in year category}} to break on these categories, because the templates expect a 4-digit year/decade. I could modify the templates to accept 3-digit years/decades (albeit at the cost of some added complexity), but it seems to me that a better solution is to follow the principle adopted at numerous CFDs over the last few years (mostly proposed by @Marcocapelle) to avoid a collection of WP:SMALLCATs for these early periods, by consolidating the entries into by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: If the consensus is to keep either by-year or by-decade categories, please notify me. I will then modify the category header templates to support 3-digit years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - given the sad dearth of films and fiction set in the 10th century the nom seems to be on firm ground. Category:Works set in the 930s could be added (as it will be emptied by the nom). Oculi (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- WE are unlikely to get enough content to need anything so specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 15 March 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:BTS (band)[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. MER-C 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPICCAT, the category name should match the article name. BTS (band) was recently moved to BTS following a requested moved. Despite the long list at BTS (disambiguation), the official names of those entries is not "BTS", it is simply the abbreviated form of their official names. In actuality, only three pages in the disambiguation page contain "BTS": BTS Group, BTS Group Holdings, and BTS Skytrain. In addition to only being partial page title matches, is it not realistic to expect readers to search for albums, songs, concert tours, etc., from a consulting firm, a public company, or a transit system. Practices suggest we do not preemptively disambiguate categories if the main article in question is the clear primary topic. We have Michael Jackson and Category:Michael Jackson, not Category:Michael Jackson (American singer) despite the existence of Michael Jackson (English singer) and several other notable Michael Jacksons. Precedence suggests the opposite – when the article for Adele (singer) was moved to Adele, Category:Adele (singer) and its subcategories were moved to Category:Adele without the parenthetical disambiguation as a result of a 2015 CFD, even in light of both Adele (disambiguation) and 80 or so people with the give name Adele. BTS has one clear topic that is quite evident from search trends and the aforementioned page move, which becomes even more conspicuous in category names. ƏXPLICIT 02:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have left a notification (diff) of this discussion on the BTS talk page. ƏXPLICIT 02:16, 11 March 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_March_11&oldid=1210356549"