Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Headbomb (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 20 August 2019 (→Category:8 times per year journals: **There is no reason to single out 8/year (Semi-quarterly) vs 9/year or weekly. ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17

Category:Backwoods slasher

Proposed renaming to Category:Backwoods slasher to Category:Backwoods slasher films
Nominator's rationale: "Backwoods slasher" is too lax/nondescript; I believe we need the "films" qualifier at the end for purposes of clarity. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim Zionists

Nominator's rationale: High likelihood of abuse. Should either be deleted or renamed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's notable, especially as a matter of historical study and especially earlier history when Zionism had more Muslim support than it has now. The idea that the category can be abused does not negate this notability. However, I might support it being renamed if there is consensus in that direction. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just likelihood. It is currently being abused. Almost every current member of the group is a BLP and there is no RS in articles indicating they are Zionists. All of them at most only acknowledge Israel's right to exist. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, the BLP rigors of course need to be applied. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds okay to me. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT governors of provinces of Argentina

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, who is the first and only such person who exists at all as of today and thus the category has no imminent prospects of expansion. Obviously this could be recreated in the future if and when there are several people to be filed in it, but it's not navigationally useful for just one person. He was also left double-catted in the relevant parent categories ("LGBT heads of government" and "LGBT politicians from Argentina") alongside this, so no upmerging is actually necessary. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creation Science Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: "Creation science" is a branch of creationism, and one who believes it is a "creationist". I see no value in the YEC subcategory, which contains only 3 users, and suggest upmerging it; however, if there is no consensus for that, we should at least rename it to a proper title. (Category creators not notified: bot, inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism

Nominator's rationale: Shorter title, and per the convention used throughout Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interest user templates

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into Category:Userboxes, as separation is unnecessary. I will move subcategories shortly, the userboxes will be moved as part of WikiProject Userboxes "Diffuse" task. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fortnightly magazines

Nominator's rationale: Biweekly is every two weeks. Fortnightly is every two weeks. No sense in having two categories for the same thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Association of Castles and Museums around the Baltic Sea

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing castles by their membership in a non-notable organization. Article draft at Draft:The Association of Castles and Museums around the Baltic Sea was rejected for lack of independent sources and eventually deleted. Renata (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of government agencies

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government agencies by objective

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary . Shyamsunder (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open world racing video games

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Dohvahkiin (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has already been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dohvahkiin: which articles were in this category and why is it overcategorization? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: It’s a new category that was created a few days ago, so just a few games such as the Forza Horizon, Midnight Club, Carmageddon, and The Crew series of games. I believe this is overcategorization because it’s combining a gameplay component (Open world) with a genre (Racing games), and the person that created this category was removing these games from the Open world games category and Racing games category, although the person added the new category as a subcategory of the previous two. It’s like if someone were to create a category for “Open world FPS games” and “Open world action-Adventure games”. These aren’t necessary because they’re already part of the categories for Open world and racing in this case.Dohvahkiin (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've left a notification of this discussion on the creator's talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category: French Cameroons

Nominator's rationale: After the First World War, Kamerun was divided between the French and the British. The British create two colonies, one of which merged with Nigeria and the other one with Cameroon. However, the French Cameroon was one unified colony. France only had one Cameroon and there is literally nothing proving that it had more than one. I believe it was a typo. I'm looking forward to that change. Onbec (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
opposed speedy
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and delete last one The MOS suggests that the titles should be lower-cased in "generic use". However, in this case, these are not "generic titles" but well and truly the actual title (i.e. same as today "Queen of England") - which, per MOS, should actually be capitalized (3rd item in the list here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people). And that is all ignoring that MOS seems to be more relevant to prose than to titles, anyway... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Edit: Delete the 20th century one as, by that point, there's only one person in the category and the title is only subsidiary by that point (and, as someone else noted on a previous discussion, WP:OVERLAPCAT is a thing). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Sardinia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
opposed speedy
  • There is more to be discussed about this. King of Sardinia was a subsidiary title of the Aragonese/Spanish kings throughout most of these centuries. But let us first settle this spelling issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The title is King of Sardinia. However, I am dubious whether a category is merited where this is a subsidiary title for a king of Aragon or of Spain before 1720 or Kings of Italy after 1861, but it was the main title of the House of Savoy 1720-1861 and we should have a category in that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Fireboats of Halifax Fire Services

Nominator's rationale: Most of the fireboats operated in Halifax were operated by the military, not the municipality. Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marketing performance measurement

Nominator's rationale: Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that probably should have been removed after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing performance measurement closed. A redirect Marketing performance measurement has just been created however the use of that name on the target was not sourced and removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might fall to beme to get a list. I've not got anything automated to get a list any I suppose the onus is on me to get one and handle the result. I'm currently on the road and may attempted to get a list in a couple of days.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. My view is if I have a defined list of articles that would become orphaned I might we in a position or organise mitigations ... simply put I might then seek out foster parents or alternative actions. But I need to see the scope of the issue first. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As may be gathered my preference is to delete; however I am also not unhappy with rename; and am in strong preference to rename rather than keep; so am happy enough to defer to rename rather than keep and would be honoured if people you object to delete would indicate a preference for remain. I confess to be unclear as nominator if there is anything I need to formally do to indicate this developed stance. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more subcategories nominated
Nominator's rationale: rename for the sake of more clarity of the purpose of these categories and for a better definingness of the characteristics. "Related" or "associated" is too vague, per WP:OCASSOC.
@AussieLegend, Pyxis Solitary, Escape Orbit, Bearcat, Roscelese, David J Johnson, Laurel Lodged, and GetSomeUtah: pinging contributors to the last related CfD discussion that I am aware of. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure.
    Comment: I've witnessed food fights over adding Gay-related and Lesbian-related categories. Is it all or mostly Gay or Lesbian? Is there only some Gay or Lesbian? How important is that some? Yada yada yada, and the beat goes on. It's why I think that "Related" and "Themed" are both not the right term to use. "Related" means associated. The definition of "themed" is dealing with a topic or subject. If a program or film, for example, contains significant and/or predominant LGBT content, then "Themed" would be suitable. But what about programs and films where an LGBT character is a lead character and the sexual orientation frames the character, but the other characters in the program or film are not LGBT? Or the character's storyline is an important element, but so are those about the heterosexuals? Tagging such a program or film as "LGBT themed" would be incorrect -- just as much as tagging it as "LGBT related".
    It's a dilemma. Maybe "LGBT relevant" or "LGBT inclusive" is the more appropriate term. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Montreal Screwjob

Nominator's rationale: Too little content--five of these are just redirects to the main article. Just include a see also section and Upmerge to parents as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentation shared content templates

Nominator's rationale: It overpopulates the category. I don't know for sure, but out of the 567 templates that populate this category.. I wanna say like 10 to 20 aren't related to this specific use case. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8 times per year journals

Nominator's rationale: From my understanding categories are supposed to reflect defining characteristics of their components. This is certainly not a defining characteristic (it is implausible, but not impossible that a person may say "Ah, I can't remember the name of the journal but it relates to this topic area and I do know it comes 8 times a year..), wastes the time of editors who categorise it, and also clutters articles. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying that we necessarily need a level of granularity where we have a category for 1/year, 2/year, ..., 52/year, >52/year (Note: These are currently being populated by the infobox, based on the |frequency= parameter. This is temporary and could clash with existing categories when there is a mismatch in frequency. Also, several of them, e.g. Category:1 times per year journals will redirect to a 'named' version Category:Annual journals.) But a journal published 8/year is a different beast than one published every week. It could very well be that we consider publication frequencies from 10–14 times/year to all be "monthly", 24–28 times/year to be "biweekly", 48–-52 times/year to all be "weekly", etc... Or we could have categories like
This is where the feedback of User:DGG would be useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I also do not have examples of semi-quarterly schedules. Which is part of the other problem raised, the publication frequency is too trivial, so detailed publication schedules are lacking. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an example. It's (almost) monthly till July (May is the only month missing) and then has 2 more issues in the last 5 months of the year. I'm starting to think more and morre that perhaps we should get rid of the whole "stuff by publication frequency" tree... --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole hierarchy. Headbomb is absolutely right that annual journals are quite different from weekly ones, but that is by taking the extremes of a sliding scale. What's the defining difference between 8 times a year journals and 9 times a year ones? 30 times vs 38 times? We categorize academic journals by language, publisher, subject, and year of establishment and those are defining characteristics. Whether a journal appears 4,5, or 6 times a year is about as defining as whether it is or used to be printed on glossy paper or not. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_17&oldid=911740163"