Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3[edit]

Category:New South Wales City rugby league team players[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 rename per WP:C2D.
The head article has been stable atCity New South Wales rugby league team since it was moved to that title in 2011. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. To bring it in line with the main article's name: City New South Wales rugby league team. Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2013 (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:Birds of Prey (TV series)[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With the show is cancelled, there is no chance that this category will be populated. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On article and two images does not make a category. No objection to recreating later if additional notable pages are created. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2013 (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:Green Lantern television series[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 Category:Green Lantern in other media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With the show is cancelled, there is no chance that this category will be populated, thus both articles within it should be move to Category:Green Lantern in other media. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't have to worry about populating it because it is populated. Eliminating this container would just mix up the TV pages that are in it now with the non-tv pages in the main category. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nomination. No objection to recreating if additional articles are developed later. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Green Lantern in other media. The animated films subcat seems large enough to keep, but everything else needs to be merged there, on the prinicple of one franchise one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2013 (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:American women graphic designers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no action. The category has already been speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this case, one could make an argument that women have not figured prominently in the history of graphic design, but we don't need to divide by nationality as this will tend to ghettoize, so rename to be more broad. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (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:Women designers[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/delete all, except Category:Canadian women designers which was speedily deleted as empty on 11 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The designers category is a top-level category that groups together many different fields of design. In some of these fields, it is possible that women in that particular field are a subject worthy of note, but I don't think "women designers" writ large is equally so. I think Category:Women designers by nationality should be deleted and the other three merged to the parents, and then look at whether particular design occupations have historically excluded women or where women doing that job are a subject of serious study. But designers as is, is way too broad and the issues and presence of women in different design jobs too diverse to merit genderization at this level. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/Delete I doubt that it is notable at present, and maybe even at no time in history, that a costume designer for example was woman. Some of these categories actually have a professional balance where men are more the exception, but I think it is just not worth having any by gender division in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion? It's not a heavily active WP but they would have some insight into this proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify any wikiprojects you think are relevant. Note, however, that this is not about fashion designers, this is about the container category of "Designer", which includes lots of different professions with the word "design" in their title, so if you notify fashion you may want to notify projects that discuss architecture, jewelry, landscape, video games, etc. Frankly I don't think it's worth it, but go for it if you think it will help.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I think about this, the more I think we should also delete Category:American designers. Why do we treat people involved in fashion and computer games the same just because they use the same word to describe their very different professions. This looks like categorization by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (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:Countries bordering water bodies[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing countries by what oceans/seas they border is not good categorization as (1) a country could be in many such categories (e.g. France could be in at least 4 such categories even without its overseas territories), (2) we don't have other "bordering" categories (countries-bordering-country, seas-bordering-country etc) (it would cause recursive categorization), (3) country categories (e.g. Category:Russia) get put under these categories (so, for example, Vladivostok is categorized under Category:Mediterranean which is incorrect per WP:SUBCAT) and (4) in many cases it's not really a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. that Russia borders the Caspian Sea). This sort of thing is better covered by lists. For info: Several categories similar to these were deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_16#Category:Countries_bordering_.3Cocean.3E. Note: Category:Countries in the Caribbean is not included in this nomination. DexDor (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This level of categorization based on which entities a country borders is a step too far, and there was recently a discussion that ended in deletion of countries bordering oceans. This is already well covered in lists for the relevant articles as noted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2013 (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 woman personalities[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see anything to suggest that women, especially women internet personalities, are a specific subject that is differentiated sufficiently from internet personalities (which is itself problematic, but thats another discussion). I don't think we need to genderize being known to have done something on the internet. Sorry Ottawa for nominating several of your categories, but I think you may want to consider slowing down on the gendered category creation. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (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:Route 66 buffs[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:User categories or WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2013 (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:Fans of the Silver Falcons[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:User categories. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per "Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (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:Ukrainian Revolution[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 to Category:Russian Revolution in Ukraine. The debate is slightly unclear which target should be chosen, but I think the nominator's 'second variant' might have the problem of appear to include only matters after the events in question, when many of the articles are during at the least. -Splash - tk 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ukrainian Revolution is disambig page. This category is subcat for Category:Russian Revolution and include 1917-20 events only in Ukraine, main article: Russian Revolution. NickSt (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. Second variant is Category:Ukraine after the Russian Revolution per catmain article Ukraine after the Russian Revolution. What better way? NickSt (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current name is too inprecise, especially since it could refer to the present disturbances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2013 (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:People convicted of animal pornography offenses[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 to Category:People convicted of sex crimes. There is not consensus to delete, but where to merge? Since BrownHairedGirl's suggestion exists I will choose that. -Splash - tk 23:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe in small categories. But this is a sensational category that applies to one person and I can't believe that it will be populated by a lot of other individuals as it is an unusual crime that is unlikely to be done by individuals notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I don't anticipate adding more article to this category and I don't think this category should exist just for one individual. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this category should be deleted. It will always be a small category. The number of notable individuals who are convicted of animal pornography of bestiality charges will always be small. I don't think having this category for one or two people warrants its existence. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 15 December 2013 (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.

Joe 90[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Category:Joe 90, and upmerge the episodes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two small categories with no chance of expansion. Articles for the episodes have been redirected to the episode list (a few by me, others in response to PRODs that I placed on them) because none of them meet notability guidelines. The few remaining articles are properly categorized without these eponymous ones. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episodes subcategory was created prematurely, and should probably be deleted. One or two episodes seem, to me, to be more noteworthy than the rest and could be un-redirected when I re-write them and get the sourcing in order. On that basis, and because in any case it contains more than just a couple of pages/files, keep the main category, Category:Joe 90. SuperMarioMan 19:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly delete the episodes. Even if notability can be established for a couple of them (and I do not know), they can conveniently be accomodated in the parent, which probably has enough content to warrant keeping it, though it is marginal. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main category, merge the other one into it. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 7 December 2013 (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.

Soft redirects[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: procedural close. None of the categories involved were tagged, so no action could have been taken, because other editors were not notified of this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure for guidance on how to create a CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have two soft redirected categories: Category:1930s in Siam‎ and Category:Years of the 20th century in Siam‎ that redirect to Category:1930s in Thailand and Category:Years of the 20th century in Thailand. Since Siam was the official name in many years, why the redirect for those years? Debresser (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- the practice is that the category for renamed countries reflects its present name. However sub-cats should reflect the contemporary name. Thailand appears to be used from 1939, so that the soft redirects are appropriate, according to precedents developed over recent months. Possibly the 1930s category should be retained to reflect the contemporary name, as a sibling to Category:1930s in Thailand which should be used for the rest of the decade. If so, both need a brief headnote explaining when the change took place and why. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what should be used in the articles according to practise? Category:1932 in Siam or Thailand? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of articles seems to be that the country was Siam until the late 1930s and then became Thailand. The categories should match that. The annual category for 1932 should be "1932 in Siam", but that for 1939 should be "1939 in Siam". The parent should probably be Category:1930s in Thailand with a soft redirect for the Siam version. The 1940s category shoould be "Thailand" and the 1920s "Siam", with the parent remaining at Thailand (because that is the present name). This is the equivialent of what had been done with categories for Ottoman Empire/Turkey and several pther countries or polities that have changed theri name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2013 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3&oldid=1138397786"