Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

October 26

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Criminal comedy

Propose renaming Category:Criminal comedy to Category:Crime comedy
Propose renaming Category:Criminal comedy television series to Category:Crime comedy television series
Propose renaming Category:American criminal comedy television series to Category:American crime comedy television series
Propose renaming Category:British criminal comedy television series to Category:British crime comedy television series
Propose renaming Category:2010s criminal comedy television series to Category:2010s crime comedy television series
Propose renaming Category:2010s British criminal comedy television series to Category:2010s British crime comedy television series

Nominator's rationale: As with Criminal comedy films, this genre of film and television entertainment is called "crime comedy", not "criminal comedy". The distinction is important, because crime comedy is not necessarily always about the criminals per se: it can also be about the crime victims, or the cops or private detectives trying to solve the crime. And similarly, our parallel categories for crime-related drama are all at "crime drama" rather than "criminal drama". Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Library websites

Propose merging Category:Library websites to Category:Digital libraries

Nominator's rationale: seem to be the same thing Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Library websites is ambiguous. It could mean websites of traditional libraries, it could mean websites that are themselves libraries, or it could mean library (computing) websites. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, not the same: digital libraries are for downloading/streaming electronic copies, and library websites include services that facilitate borrowing hardcopy books, per lead article Library website. ~~Instead, restructure, making Category:Library websites a parent of Category:Digital libraries instead of a sub-cat~~, purging Domínio Público and recategorising Hoopla (digital media service) in digital libraries. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I was initially confused by the presence of Domínio Público and Hoopla (digital media service), which I agree should be removed from this category. In terms of restructuring, frankly I think that Category:Library websites should become a subcategory of Category:Online catalogues and should be neither parent nor child of Category:Digital libraries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove those articles - which are what confused me - I dont think Category:Library websites is worth keeping. Certainly in the UK it is normal now for libraries to have websites and online facilities. I think we should merge it into Libraries. Again, in the UK, and I think most of the world, now, all the catalogues are online. Its not a defining characteristic. The actual contents of Category:Online catalogues are a mess, and I think that should probably go too. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. I would not oppose merging into Category:Online catalogues and Category:Libraries, and discussing Category:Online catalogues later. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, let's disperse and then delete, moving the lead article to Category:Libraries and others to appropriate sub-categories, e.g. Borrow Direct to Category:University and college academic libraries in the United States, Category:Library circulation and Category:Library cooperation. – Fayenatic London 08:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Bar-Kays albums

Propose renaming Category:The Bar-Kays albums to Category:Bar-Kays albums

Nominator's rationale: Moved main article Bar-Kays per WP:THE since they seldom use "The" on their albums and such. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Yes they did often drop the 'the' but they also used the 'the', they also dropped the hyphen too, does that mean we have to move it again? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In (this) case of doubt, I would rather drop "The". Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adult websites

Propose merging Category:Adult websites to Category:Websites by topic

Nominator's rationale: No actual articles. Unnecessary intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but disperse content among Category:Websites by topic and Category:Sexuality and computing. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose useful subgrouping of related topics. --John B123 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The commonality is already covered by Category:Sexuality and computing. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A logical place to start if you were looking for articles on "Adult websites" would be Category:Websites by topic. Category:Sexuality and computing is not in that category, and even if it was it would be a less obvious place to look than Category:Adult websites. The object of categorisation is, after all, to aid readers to find articles. --John B123 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it should remain possible to find Category:Erotica and pornography websites under Category:Websites by topic as well. This proposal does not conflict with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There are already other adult website categories in Category:Websites by topic. Here, "adult" is not used to mean "pornographic" and not to mean "people older than 18 years". flowing dreams (talk page) 05:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CCAT. Merging is not a solution. You may rename, if name is the problem. Störm (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adult websites is just an alternative name for Erotica and pornography websites for which a category already exists. The reason to upmerge rather than downmerge is that the other two subcats do not belong in Category:Erotica and pornography websites. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And as I said, there are already other adult website categories in Category:Websites by topic. flowing dreams (talk page) 02:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can categorise Category:Adult social networking services‎, which is contained within Category:Adult websites, as pornography or erotica? - --John B123 (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can not. That's why it does not belong to a category named "Adult websites". Get it? flowing dreams (talk page) 08:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't "get it" as you put it, as your rationale is based on the erroneous premise that "Erotica and pornography" and "Adult websites" are the same thing. Erotica and pornography is a sub-set of Adult websites, which is why Category:Erotica and pornography websites is contained with Category:Adult websites. The real question here should be whether Category:Erotica and pornography websites should be within Category:Websites by topic as it's already in a more specific category. --John B123 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Category:Adult social networking services‎ has been renamed to Category:Adult dating websites. I concur with User:flowing dreams, it should not be a child or sibling of Category:Erotica and pornography websites, it is a whole different thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see that much is gained by grouping these 3 categories together. Category:Shock sites doesnt have a lot in common with the other 2. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination above did give me that impression. 😉 On a more serious note, you can update the nomination statement, can't you? flowing dreams (talk page) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Behavior models

Propose deleting Category:Behavior models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:SMALLCAT, but move the article to Category:Models of computation or similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Behavior selection algorithms

Propose merging Category:Behavior selection algorithms to Category:Game artificial intelligence

Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per WP:NONDEF, none of the articles in the category (except for the eponymous article) mentions that it is a "behavior selection algorithm". Some articles belong in Category:Game artificial intelligence though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Behavior modelling

Propose merging Category:Behavior modelling to Category:Behavior

Nominator's rationale: merge, this category only contains one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: would any contents actually be merged? Perhaps it would be helpful to combine these three nominations. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: I did not want to exclude the possibility that there is consensus for this nomination but not for one of the two other nominations. If there is indeed consensus for all three nominations, it results in a delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]