Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Defunct publications

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Yemen to Category:Defunct newspapers published in Yemen and all such 'of foo' newspaper and magazine categories.
Also Category:Defunct magazines of Zimbabwe to Category:Defunct magazines published in Zimbabwe etc.

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6#Newspapers_by_country renamed Category:Austrian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Austria (see its exemplary rationale). Moreover these are all subcats of eg Category:Mass media in Yemen, which was likewise renamed to use 'in' via this cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10#Media_by_country. The same rationale applies to magazines. Oculi (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of 243 'defunct newspapers/magazines' categories

Discussion for defunct newspapers/magazines

Support as nom. Oculi (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; "of" does the job just fine. BD2412 T 00:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as well as 'published in'. Oculi (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Category:Defunct_mass_media, which changed 'of' to 'in'. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and to avoid multi-catting of publications distributed in more than one country. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. b uidhe 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Provides consistency and clarity. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:26, 24 May 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:Bleach games

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 and upmerge Bleach Trading Card Game. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bleach games to Category:Bleach (manga) video games

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C per Category:Bleach (manga) and Category:Video games based on anime and manga, and move article Bleach Trading Card Game to Category:Bleach (manga) as it is not a video game. This nomination was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copy of CFDS discussion

Category:Bleach games to Category:Bleach (manga) video games – C2C: To match parent category's title _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedily adding "video" as Bleach Trading Card Game isn't a video game. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category is a subcategory of other video game categories. It seems to me that the trading card game doesn't belong there and should be moved to the base category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crazy Boy 826 22:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with Selective Upmerge As nominated. This better describes the vast majority of the contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 24 May 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:Buntings (bird)

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: redirect to Category:Emberizidae. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Buntings (bird) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The text of this category includes "This category collects birds called "buntings" and/or traditionally placed in the Emberizidae, regardless of their actual relationships. Its contents do not form a natural group ...". It thus fails SHAREDNAME and OVERLAPCAT (with Category:Emberizidae). DexDor^(talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a credible search term, covering a group of birds, mostly of one family: would it not be better to make this a dab-category or category-redirect rather than deleting? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect sounds reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 24 May 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:NBA players' association current and former members

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:NBA players' association current and former members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Category:National Basketball Association players. All NBA players are members of the union. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that all NBA players are in the union? SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NBA and NBPA have a collective bargaining agreement that covers all NBA players. This is how all of the major sport unions work (in North America at least). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could redo into to Category:NBA players' association presidents and vice presidents since there is only have been a select of this group SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: Having a category called Category:Presidents of the National Basketball Players Association to match Category:Presidents of the National Football League Players Association would fit well under Category:Leaders of American trade unions from my perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:RevelationDirect I'm surprised that us Wikipedians haven't created Category:Presidents of the National Basketball Players Association yet, but would it be defining to have a category featuring the vice presidents as well? But the subcategory itself would fit well. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The VPs I looked at seemed defined by being players but not by their union involvement. (The Executive Directors generally do seem definined by the players association and there are MLB and NFL categories for ED.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not defining. Rikster2 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Depending on the state's labor laws where the team is based, either all or (in practice) most of the players would be in the union for each team.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:39, 24 May 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:Assets owned by ABS-CBN

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Assets owned by ABS-CBN to Category:Assets owned by ABS-CBN Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Housekeeping. The main entity's article had a recent move discussion that results a move from ABS-CBN to ABS-CBN Corporation. robertsky (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 29 May 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:Buildings at the University of Maine

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings at the University of Maine to Category:Buildings and structures at the University of Maine

Nominator's rationale: To match the head category and reflect the content of the category. User:Namiba 12:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2C, per convention of Category:Buildings and structures by university or college.
@User:Namiba, it's easier for everyone if this sort of speediable renamnigs are listed at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per BHG. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:45, 23 May 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:Internet company founders by countries

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Internet company founders by countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Apparently company founders are categorized by nationality not country, so items are now part of Category:Internet company founders by nationality. I had considered making this a category redirect, but it should be Category:Internet company founders by country not this one ("countries"). Senator2029 “Talk” 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:47, 22 May 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:Constantine (TV series)

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Constantine (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. Upmerge the subcategories somewhere appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2 articles, 2 files and 2 redirect categories. Plenty enough to navigate to and from. Are you on a crusade lately Koavf to make navigation harder for content you don't care for? --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, only two articles in the category. The files and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. Only four items in total, which is not enough ... and the two categories of redirects are not much use for readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gonnym. I looked at several of the redirects and they were all useful targeted redirects. A redirect can be just as useful as an article. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 31 May 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:Freedom Fighters: The Ray

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Freedom Fighters: The Ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. Upmerge the subcategory somewhere appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a file, image and 2 redirect categories. Plenty enough for navigation to and from. --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories for redirects shouldn't even be placed in articles (content) categories. Most categories for redirects show a notice stating that. DexDor^(talk) 19:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, only one article in the category. The file and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. Only three items in total, which is not enough ... and the category of redirects isn't much use for readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DexDor^(talk) 19:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This series features the established character Ray (Ray Terrill). Would a category about the character attract more content? Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't share the aversion to redirects, which IMO should be treated as articles (as they used to be). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 May 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:Vixen (web series)

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Vixen (web series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. Upmerge the subcategory somewhere appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a file, image and 2 redirect categories. Plenty enough for navigation to and from. --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, only one article in the category. The file and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. Only three items in total, which is not enough ... and the category of redirects isn't much use for readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The redirects lead to the main article which already contains the image file in the infobox. There is no navigational benefit here of going directly from redirect to image file. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't share the aversion to redirects, which IMO should be treated as articles (as they used to be). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 May 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:Terrorist incidents attributed to the Incel subculture

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Terrorist incidents attributed to the Incel subculture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was evidently created in a bit of a rush. Many of the articles that were put under this category (but have since been removed), particularly the 2009 Collier Township shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings, have not been officially, retroactively recognized as terrorist attacks by authorities and/or WP:RS, even after years. The only one that would qualify for such a categorization at this time would be the 2020 Toronto machete attack, which is being prosecuted as a terrorist attack. At this point, the success of the category is highly dependent on the incel ideology being recognized as a terrorist ideology, which has yet to happen. Love of Corey (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per policy, I've re-added the category to all of the articles affected until a consensus is reached. Love of Corey (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I understand what is meant by incel subculture, but it seems ephemeral compared to a terrorist organization who claims responsibility for an act. How do we determine the true motivations of the person causing the act? What makes sexual frustration the primary factor versus other reasons for homicidal action? A list allows for these nuances along with sources, while categorization does not. Senator2029 “Talk” 12:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The whole set of "Terrorist incidents" categories is a horrible POV mess, in which the term "terrorism" is repeatedly used as if it was an objectively-assessed fact, rather than a value-laden pejorative term. I don't see this particular category as being significantly more problematic than the rest of that category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hello all, I'm the one who started the category after a brief discussion on the incel talk page, which can be viewed here. I thought that it was odd that there was not a category linking together the various incidents attributed to the incel movement or subculture. If there is contention over the use of the word "terrorist", than perhaps this category could be moved to a different title, such as Category:Violent incidents attributed to the Incel subculture or just simply Category:Incidents attributed to the Incel subculture. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I am reading the articles, "incel" seems to be barely defining. So delete, or if kept rename to something non-terrorist that fits the existing category terminology e.g. Category:Incel-related attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A renaming would be just as problematic, considering the Collier Township and Isla Vista attacks occurred before the incel subculture became prominent. I highly doubt either of the perpetrators were aware of it, judging by the WP:RS on their articles. Love of Corey (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why the word attributed is used. While the Collier Township and Isla Vista perpetrators might not have associated themselves with the incel subculture per se, they are still highly idealized by members of this subculture and shared similar sentiments. Almost every news article about the incel movement mentions the either the Collier Township and especially the Isla Vista attacks. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, "attributed" means to be linked to something, essentially. How can these guys be linked to something that didn't exist at the time? Love of Corey (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that is apparently one of the reasons that the articles in the category do not prominently discuss incel. So this is more reason to delete the category per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Love of Corey (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The articles I checked were already well categorized by location, year, type of attack etc. If not deleted then rename to something like "Violent incidents ..." or "Murders ...". DexDor^(talk) 19:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Celibacy can be attributed to be involuntary for so many people that there is a serious problem in definition here. I vividly remember that the 2016 Nice truck attack perpetrator's recent separation from his wife was widely cited among the chief factors leading to this terrible event, and I therefore guess that it must not be hard to find someone from the "incel culture" ready to recognize him as one of them, and maybe they did. That's how grey this notion gets. Also, to talk about terrorism one would expect a minima the intention to use terror in the general population for a political gain, and I do not see the will to reach either terror or political gain in these incidents. Anger and misanthropy do not equal terrorism. Place Clichy (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If kept rename to Category:Multiple murders by involuntary celebates. Incel is an obscure neologism. However, I doubt there is any such unified them as "incel culture". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 24 May 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:Canadian dames

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/upmerge. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Canadian dames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pointless and redundant JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. @JDDJS: why do you say it is pointless? And to what do you claim it is redundant? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because all it has in it is the category Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, @JDDJS. Unless we create a Canadian subcat of Category:Pantomime dames and add it to Category:Canadian dames ... which would be be a bit mischievous, but fun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support unnecessary container. b uidhe 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Canadian recipients of British titles, which would otherwise be left out. Place Clichy (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is completely correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an unnecessary layer as the single subcategory is adequately categorised. I am not sure that Place Clichy is correct. This is (or was) an imperial (now Commonwealth) award, which would be awarded by the Queen (or rather the Governor-General on her behalf) on the recommendation of the Canadian Prime Minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'British' here is a reference to the British honours system, not strictly with the United Kingdom. See also Category:Canadian recipients of British honours. Place Clichy (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Per Place Clichy. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 25 May 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.