Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 2
Category:Reference standards
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criterion; all standards are arguably for reference; seems just a category for similarly named standards. fgnievinski (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Marcocapelle. Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Period television 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: not merged/renamed. @Kailash29792, Marcocapelle, and William Allen Simpson: if further discussion is needed before pruning/rearranging, I suggest Talk:Historical drama as the appropriate venue, with notice at WT:TV. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Period television series to Category:Historical television series
- added on relisting:
- Propose merging Category:Chinese period television series to Category:Chinese historical television series
- Propose merging Category:Indian period television series to Category:Indian historical television series
- Propose merging Category:Japanese period television series to Category:Japanese historical television series
- Propose renaming Category:Pakistani period television series to Category:Pakistani historical television series
- Propose merging Category:Portuguese period television series to Category:Portuguese historical television series
- Propose renaming Category:Period family drama television series to Category:Historical family drama television series
- Nominator's rationale: They're the exact same thing. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, possibly leave a redirect. In fact the content should be dispersed to the subcats of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I dislike the use of "historical" in this context as it implies some veracity. As I stated recently about the corresponding film category, there is a huge stretch of credulity to lump things like that purport to convey a historical past with those that don't. E.g., compare Roots or Little House on the Prairie with Merlin (2008 TV series) or The Flintstones. We have a whole structure of Category:Television series by period of setting and that should suffice rather than trying to claim that the Flintstones were 'historic'. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, dispersion (which I suggested before) would most particularly involve dispersion to the subcategory Category:Television series by period of setting. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment
Reverse merge— a fictional portrayal during a period isn't necessarily historical. That would keep Category:Television series by period of setting under Category:Period television series.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is not a great idea. For example Category:Television series about the history of the United States fits perfectly well in Category:Historical television series but it would not fit in Category:Period television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's the particular problem. Instead of Category:Period television series being the parent, they are mistakenly reversed under Category:Historical television series. Not all period shows are historical. All historical shows are about a period. That's why it would be best that Category:Television series about the history of the United States should be the child of Category:Period television series.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, historical television series includes non-fiction, while period television series does not, as Period television series redirects to Historical drama. Hence "historical" is broader than "period". Besides a historical television series does not have to be about a period, it can also be about a country across periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's the particular problem. Instead of Category:Period television series being the parent, they are mistakenly reversed under Category:Historical television series. Not all period shows are historical. All historical shows are about a period. That's why it would be best that Category:Television series about the history of the United States should be the child of Category:Period television series.
- @Marcocapelle and Carlossuarez46: Historical drama was just moved a few days ago from Historical period drama (since 2014), and was orginally named Period piece (since 2005) created by trained historian with a film degree. It is still in Category:Period pieces. This was done without discussion (other than a non-discussed post on the Talk) by a single user. That change was made with no citations. In the US film and theater industry, they are called "period dramas" or "period pieces" (for an highly influential example, see 25 Best Period Dramas to Watch For an Escape).
Only actual non-fiction history is called "historical". It is a subset of (child of) all period pieces, because a period piece can include fiction. I'd thought that maybe there was an English-language issue, but I'm finding the same terms in Britain. The primary ghit for "Historical drama" is wikipedia, followed by pages of ghits for "period drama".In the world of Hollywood, a period piece specifically refers to a film, TV series, or miniseries that is set during an earlier time. Period pieces often have high budgets and involve complex shoots, but the extra effort ensures that the audience is transported into a past era.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok but that still means we should not get rid of the "historical" tree for the sake of the non-fiction content in it. While for fiction Category:Television series by period of setting suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle that seems reasonable. We just have to swap them around a bit. I've struck my !vote above. Done!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle that seems reasonable. We just have to swap them around a bit. I've struck my !vote above. Done!
- In that case, "historical drama" should be renamed "period drama" as the latter name is more common. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kailash29792 Probably should be renamed back to the original title: Period piece, with an appropriate set of redirects. Don't forget there are "period comedies" and "period romances" and "period television series" (the case in point).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kailash29792 Probably should be renamed back to the original title: Period piece, with an appropriate set of redirects. Don't forget there are "period comedies" and "period romances" and "period television series" (the case in point).
- In that case, "historical drama" should be renamed "period drama" as the latter name is more common. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and prune — with the containers swapped pursuant to discussion, we can simply upmerge those who are period but not historical, and eliminate duplicates.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nice idea William Allen Simpson. Many period pieces are not dramatic, but violent, comical, horrific and romantic, all separately. These rename discussions may be closed with the consensus not to move, once historical drama is renamed to period drama/period piece. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- See Talk:Historical drama#Requested move 27 February 2021
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC) - That was closed as No consensus to move to Period piece. IMHO it would now be appropriate to relist this nomination along with sub-cats for merging. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding sub-categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: adding sub-categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that after the above discussion merging is no longer an option, since Category:Period television series can be used for fiction and Category:Historical television series can be used for non-fiction. A secondary issue is whether Category:Period television series should be a parent of Category:Historical television series (as it is now) or vice versa (which I would prefer). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Albums produced by Warren "Oak" Felder
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Warren "Oak" Felder to Category:Albums produced by Oak Felder
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category - also the proper name for the category as per the parent artist page ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per C2D. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per C2D. --Just N. (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Monument types
- 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: move subcategories to Category:Monuments and memorials by type, then rename to Category:Types of monuments and memorials. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Monument types to Category:Monuments and memorials by type
- Nominator's rationale: widely overlapping scope (target need not be container cat) fgnievinski (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- If merged then reverse merge, because a "by" title implies a container category. Alternatively move the subcategories of Category:Monument types to Category:Monuments and memorials by type and keep both. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move subcats and keep per Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move subcats and rename to Category:Types of monuments and memorials, like many (though not all) within Category:Types. Repurpose by removing "ancient" and "archaeology" from the category description; then e.g. In memoriam segment wil belong in it. – Fayenatic London 07:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move subcats and rename to Category:Types of monuments and memorials per Fayenatic. --Just N. (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, renaming to Category:Types of monuments and memorials renaming makes sense too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Hypothetical nuclei
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Hypothetical nuclei to Category:Hypothetical composite particles
- Nominator's rationale: Only 2 entries, one of which is a redirect. WP:SMALLCAT and mostly redudant with other categories like Category:Isotopes of helium and Category:Neutron for the respective pages in the category. Category:Hypothetical chemical elements covers almost everything else that would belong here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:SMALLCAT relates only to small categories with no potential for growth. The potential for growth exists, as theorists proposed a lot of models of nuclei that are not observed yet but intensively discussed. See, for example, "various hypotheses of existence of stable superheavy nuclei and nuclearites glued by pion condensate [8-12], sigma condensate [13], either by strange quarks [14-18]" (arXiv:1901.05930), tetrahedral nuclei (arXiv:nucl-th/0610097), η-mesic nuclei (arXiv:nucl-ex/0011005), different hypernuclei and antihypernuclei (arXiv:1602.02173), superdense nuclei (A.B.Migdal. Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Applications to Atomic Nuclei. ISBN:0470602457 ). Nuclei of hypothetical superheavy elements should be a subcategory, and Category:Hypothetical composite particles has to be a containing category, because many of such the particles (glueball, heptaquark etc.) are not nuclei. --V1adis1av (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per V1adis1av. Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. As this is about hypothetical stuff, potential for growth is unsure. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Sigma receptor agonists
- 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Sigma receptor agonists to Category:Sigma agonists
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories are synonymous. Category:Sigma receptor agonists has only one page in it, but Category:Sigma agonists has 56. There doesn't seem to be a consistent preference for "X receptor agonists" over "X agonists" in category names, judging by the subcategories of Category:Receptor agonists. proton donor H+ 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Northwest Christian University
- 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 as nominated and also Category:Northwest Christian University alumni to Category:Bushnell University alumni, keeping redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Northwest Christian University to Category:Bushnell University
- Nominator's rationale: New name as of 2020. The subcat Category:Northwest Christian University alumni should be renamed as well. StAnselm (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename Parent/Procedural Oppose Alumni for Now Rename the main category, as nominated. In a future nom where the alumni category is tagged, I would favor renaming that as well while leaving a redirect (since bios will list graduating from the old name indefinitely). - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename (and also the alumni category). The WP convention is that alumni of renamed or merged institutions are deemed to have attended the present one. We settled this many years ago for (I think) a drama college in London that merged with another. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, the subcategory has been tagged only now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Businesspeople who committed suicide
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT Eric talk 11:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support, trivial intersection indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a trivial intersection.--User:Namiba 13:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We do not need to categorize by every intersection that exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Non-larid gulls
- 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 Category:Gulls (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Non-larid gulls to Category:Non-Larus gulls
- Nominator's rationale: All gulls are Larids, not all gulls are Larus. This category seems to have been made when most gull species were in the large genus Larus. The taxonomy has changed since then, so there are more species that could go in this category. The name of this was wrong from the start though. Iloveparrots (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, there is no reason for this category to exist in the first place. "Gulls that are not in a particular genus" is not a natural or interesting category that we should use. Somatochlora (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Laridae. Gulls are polyphyletic group , and we should not give the impression that this is a valid taxonomic classification. Laridae includes 22 different genera, should we describe them all as non-Larus gulls? Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Gulls are monophyletic, the word does not refer to terns etc. There are some discrepancies between the relevant wikipedia articles but regardless of how they are classified, gulls are still a natural group. Somatochlora (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The main article on gulls states otherwise: "Until the 21st century, most gulls were placed in the genus Larus, but that arrangement is now considered polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of several genera." ... "Until recently, most gulls were placed in the genus Larus, but this arrangement is now known to be polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of the genera Ichthyaetus, Chroicocephalus, Leucophaeus, Saundersilarus, and Hydrocoloeus.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Larus as formerly defined is polyphyletic. Gulls as a whole are monophyletic. Somatochlora (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The main article on gulls states otherwise: "Until the 21st century, most gulls were placed in the genus Larus, but that arrangement is now considered polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of several genera." ... "Until recently, most gulls were placed in the genus Larus, but this arrangement is now known to be polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of the genera Ichthyaetus, Chroicocephalus, Leucophaeus, Saundersilarus, and Hydrocoloeus.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Gulls are monophyletic, the word does not refer to terns etc. There are some discrepancies between the relevant wikipedia articles but regardless of how they are classified, gulls are still a natural group. Somatochlora (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Gulls. Non-larid or Non-Larus categorization is mere frivolous trivia, per WP:TRIVIALCAT and a form of WP:SHAREDNAME. "Gulls" is a common enough term to be defining, even if not monophyletic. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Animalparty. We categorise by what things are, not by what they are not. This is a WP:OCMISC category. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Animalparty. --Just N. (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
References
- Pons JM, Hassanin A, Crochet PA (December 2005). "Phylogenetic relationships within the Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 37 (3): 686–99. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.05.011. PMID 16054399.
- 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:Albums recorded at A&M Studios
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios
Category:Lists of city nicknames
- 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 - See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_25#Category:City_nicknames_by_city_name - jc37 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of city nicknames to Category:Lists of cities by nickname
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and in order to avoid confusion with Category:City nicknames by city name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- *rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Urdu scholars
- 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: option A merge to Category:Urdu-language writers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers, this is not about scholarship in Urdu because those are in Category:Linguists of Urdu and as far as I can see we do not have a tree for scholars of any subject by language.
- Option B: rename to Category:Urdu-language scholars, WP:C2C per Category:Urdu-language writers, Category:Urdu-language poets etc.
- As nominator I have a preference for option A, but option B is still better than the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- pinging @Gjs238: who nominated the category for option B at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename/Option A The current name is very vague. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers After perusing the first several articles in the category, it appears that most are "Urdu-language writers", and the ones that are referred to as scholars are also listed in Category:Linguists of Urdu. So it seems that Category:Urdu scholars is redundant and unnecessary. Gjs238 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Neither -- Instead diffuse, i.e. empty manually into more appropriate categories (or perhaps better add additional categories such as Category:Urdu-language novelists. When we are assured that all members have As a matter of information, Urdu (unusually) is a language that is not exactly an ethnicity, so that Urdu writers could only mean Urdu-language writers. It was the court language of the Mughal Emperors of India and is widely used by Muslims in South Asia, both in north and central India and Pakistan. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- It seems you agree they are all writers, so merging to Category:Urdu-language writers should be a good starting point, shouldn't it? Of course it can be followed by further diffusion as a next step. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Option B I took a random sample and found mostly historic muslim scientists and preachers as well as some contemporary fiction writers. And I don't think such preachers are correctly identified/merged as a "writer"/author. (Furthermore I was astonished to find 22 subcategories for Category:Urdu-language writers. Well, so far away, I never ever had any encounter with Urdu language speakers.) --Just N. (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Justus Nussbaum: fair point, then what about option A and purging the preachers? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Option A, after purging ineligible entries. What in the world is Category:Urdu critics ? Place Clichy (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Fictional child abuse victims
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Similar category was deleted recently for being vague and non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose keeping What exactly is vague or non-defining about this category? Treybien2 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment -- I suspect that there is a lot of scope for novelists to explore this subject. It is difficult to have parallel categories for real people due to BLP issues, but no reason not to have one for fictional people. I would suggest that this should be limited to cases where the abuse is a major theme, rather than merely incidental. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- We have to be realistic, there is really no way actually enforce that (at least with the current name, if the category was named Category:Victim characters in fiction about child abuse then maybe it could work).★Trekker (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- We already have Category:Novels about child abuse, that should probably suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. As an objection I just see that Category:Novels about child abuse doesn't cover films, comics and songs about child abuse. Are those as well existent? Otherwise... --Just N. (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment For films we have Category:Films about child abuse. No idea about comics. As a comic book reader, I have come across stories where villains like Norman Osborn and Doctor Octopus are depicted as grown-up victims of child abuse. But their Wikipedia entries cover such origin stories in a single line or two. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Catch dog breeds
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Catch dog breeds to Category:Catch dogs
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other sub-cats of Category:Hunting dogs (e.g. Category:Terriers, not Category:Terrier breeds). BenKuykendall (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. No idea why the creator named it 'Catch dog breeds' as the only subcat of hunting dogs with 'breeds'? Surprisingly 16 entries for cat: catch dogs. --Just N. (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment per COMMONNAME, while individual dogs or individual breeds can be called a terrier, a spaniel or a retriever, I've never seen a mastiff or a bulldog called a catch in the same fashion. Place Clichy (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty
- 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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty; no consensus on Category:Economics of uncertainty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, container categories for unrelated subfields of economics, merely kept together based on JEL classification codes, a 50 year old library system. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Rationale makes no sense. As someone whose work is largely in Economics of Uncertainty, I don't know what you mean about "unrelated subfields". As regards "50 years old" in what sense is this a criticism? JQ (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- What has Game theory in common with Portfolio theory? Neither of the two articles even mentions the term "economics of uncertainty". Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Both These category layers containing subcategories and no main articles don't aid navigation and the JEL grouping is unlikely to be helpful. I'm willing to listen to more about the Economics of Uncertainty above but Category:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty is bizarrely vague. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Responding similarly as I did toMarcocapelle, it would be helpful to have an idea of your knowledge of this field. It's difficult to discuss purely in terms of category structure.JQ (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, this is purely about the category structure and not a personal issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Starting with game theory, the central concept is that of Bayes-Nash equilibrium, discussed in Bayesian game. Most of the other main equilibrium concepts in game theory are refinements of Bayes-Nash equilibrium. So, the connection to uncertainty is clear. Similarly, the central issue in portfolio theory is the risk-return trade-off, as discussed in Capital Asset Pricing Model. Given the centrality of uncertainty here, the relevance of the category is again clear. If we can agree on that, I'm happy to move on to the broader category. JQ (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- As economics is a social science, everything in economics has an element of uncertainty. Very explicitly, Category:Macroeconomic forecasting and most of Category:Economics models contain uncertainty. We shouldn't lump all of that together in an "uncertainty" category without a decent article Economics of uncertainty specifying the boundaries of it according to academic consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I'm busy finishing a book now, but leave it with me, and I'll work on an article JQ (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- These are navigational categories meant to help readers find articles and, if there were a main article on the economics of uncertainty, I would absolutely be open to reconsidering. (Sounds like we're all implicitly accepting the parent category cannot be salvaged.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- The JEL system was carefully designed by experts in both economics and indexing. It would be much better to work within it, but I've run out of time, particularly if it's necessary to argue about it. So, I'll try to write the main article, and leave the categorization to get gradually messier, as it has been doing. Lets keep Economics of uncertainty and you can dump the larger category JQ (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete "information, knowledge, and uncertainty" which is prima facie absurd, and even more absurd due to its extremely limited content and lack of a mainspace article. If this is a legitimate category, then we ought to create Category:Apples, bananas and oranges with Category:Apples, Category:Bananas and Category:Oranges as its only members. I will hold off on saying "delete" to the other one because it seems like @John Quiggin: is about to make a point (or a main article), and I want to see it first (for me, you can assume I have a pretty good familiarity with game theory, optimization, and economic concepts). jp×g 02:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Neural networks
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Category:Neural networks
Category:Bitcoin Cash
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for the promotion of a barely notable cryptocurrency, and multiple articles are being tagged with it (without any sources). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Question, shouldn't this be merged to Category:Bitcoin? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Bitcoin Cash is a different cryptocurrency than that of Bitcoin, even though they both derive from the same genesis blockchain. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP: This category is not being used for promotions, not sure why that is being asserted here. It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing). All articles tagged are sourced correctly with RS, if you believe that to be false, then please cite examples of this otherwise. Thank you. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, more articles have been added to the category since I looked yesterday but Bitcoin Cash is not a defining characteristic for these additional articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I removed some of these links to the category but NeedAUsername44 reverted the edits to re-add to the articles. Note cryptocurrency articles are subject to WP:GS/Crypto and if my recollection is correct earlier promotional edits on this Bitcoin Cash article were the impetus for the DS. The user above essentially confirms the rationale is promotional "it is the biggest cryptocurrency, etc". It would be better if we didnt have categories for the small cryptos, as we have enough issues with PROMO edits on the articles themselves. This Category:Cryptocurrencies is sufficient for a merge if we cannot merge to Category:Bitcoin (category creator seems to object to that). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're misleading others. I did not say "it is the biggest cryptocurrency." Here is the actual statement, which can be seen above by anyone. "It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing)." Clearly what I am saying is that 1) it's notable, 2) it's actually used more than Bitcoin (see volume), and is a top cryptocurrency in the space. It's also not a "small crypto." I would like you to define "small crypto" then as you are using this phrase as some sort of deceiving characteristic of Bitcoin Cash, which it obviously by any metric is not "small." NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is WP:SOAP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- No it is not, please backup your accusations with facts. I see none so far. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is WP:SOAP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're misleading others. I did not say "it is the biggest cryptocurrency." Here is the actual statement, which can be seen above by anyone. "It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing)." Clearly what I am saying is that 1) it's notable, 2) it's actually used more than Bitcoin (see volume), and is a top cryptocurrency in the space. It's also not a "small crypto." I would like you to define "small crypto" then as you are using this phrase as some sort of deceiving characteristic of Bitcoin Cash, which it obviously by any metric is not "small." NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I removed some of these links to the category but NeedAUsername44 reverted the edits to re-add to the articles. Note cryptocurrency articles are subject to WP:GS/Crypto and if my recollection is correct earlier promotional edits on this Bitcoin Cash article were the impetus for the DS. The user above essentially confirms the rationale is promotional "it is the biggest cryptocurrency, etc". It would be better if we didnt have categories for the small cryptos, as we have enough issues with PROMO edits on the articles themselves. This Category:Cryptocurrencies is sufficient for a merge if we cannot merge to Category:Bitcoin (category creator seems to object to that). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only counting articles for which this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Disagreed. Bitcoin Cash does not fit within WP:SMALLCAT. It has a huge potential for growth, and as outlined with facts linked to above, it has already surpassed that of Bitcoin in various areas such as network activity, adoption, and by no means it's a trivial cryptocurrency, as it has a $11 billion market capitalization. If anything, as WP:SMALLCAT says, Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- It does not matter what the market value is. The question is which additional wp articles will be written about this topic. If that remains unclear the realistic potential for growth argument does not count. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Clearly Bitcoin Cash has become a top cryptocurrency looking at it's stats as compared to others including Bitcoin, and if you look at the news there is lots of RS about it, so it is in my mind undoubtedly going to be more WP articles written on this topic. Whether that actually happens or not is unknown. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Disagreed. Bitcoin Cash does not fit within WP:SMALLCAT. It has a huge potential for growth, and as outlined with facts linked to above, it has already surpassed that of Bitcoin in various areas such as network activity, adoption, and by no means it's a trivial cryptocurrency, as it has a $11 billion market capitalization. If anything, as WP:SMALLCAT says, Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or delete per WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Films directed by J. Mahendran
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 10#Category:Films directed by J. Mahendran
Category:Recipients of the Order of Guadalupe
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Guadalupe
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Guadalupe
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of Guadalupe
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
- When high ranking foreign visitors met with representatives from Imperial Mexico, the Order of Guadalupe was given out as souvenir. Queen Victoria, Kamehameha V, and Leopold I of Belgium are not remotely defined by this award. There are a few Mexican people in this category but all except 1 are members of the royal family-1, 2, 3, 4-who are already somewhere under Category:Mexican monarchy. (The 1 exception is President Vicente Guerrero who is not defined by the award.) There isn't a main article so I shoehorned a collapsible list with all the category contents right here in the Mexican Imperial Orders article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete very clear case of overcat by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Order of Saint John in Sweden
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Order of Saint John in Sweden
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous article
- The Order of Saint John in Sweden is a Swedish order that is automatically headed by the King of Sweden. The only things in this category is that main article and the current King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, who is not defined by the award. (Unlike my other nomination, there are not recipients in this category nor are they listed within the article.) I don't foresee any growth potential here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the one person in this category is in way too many other categories. We need to cut back on category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Related Articles
~