Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[edit]

Category:Fishing companies[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: do not merge. MER-C 09:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 5 articles. Seafood companies is much better populated, and there is considerable overlap. If agreed the subcategories can speedily follow. Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, seeing that seafood is the larger category (better populated to me is an oxymoron), although I do not personally think that 'seafood' per se is a 'better' term. JarrahTree 23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be quite happy to rename them differently, but while some of the seafood companies clearly do fishing, some dont. Rathfelder (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose While I recognise that there is a commonality there is also a distinction between seafood companies and fishing companies in that a seafood company doesnt necessarily engage in the physical activity fishing. Fishers are also a subset of primary producers, and seafarers. Seafood companies may not primary producers, nor will they be seafarers, additionally seafood companies can be exclusively wholesale suppliers, and retailers. Gnangarra 09:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gnangarra's argument of a clear distinction between actually fishing and selling fish. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, none of the three articles really belongs here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is a clear distinction between companies that buy and market fish when it is caught and the fishermen who catch it. The fish commonly in my country (UK) goes through an auction market between. The problem is that most companies owning trawlers are too small to be notable. I am not clear how fish farming is organised, but suspect that this also does not involve notably large companies. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is exactly the problem. It obviously leads to the question why this category should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised how few articles there are about fishing companies. If we get more we could revisit this, but for the time being I think fishing companies as a subset of seafood companies, and some of them clearly catch or raise fish as well as selling them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree fishing companies are smaller than seafood companies, fishing companies are commonly involved in at sea events either as victims or as rescuers. The loss of vessels & crews are note worthy events, the fact that its a hole in Wikipedia's coverage doesnt change any that. Gnangarra 04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion convinces me that the issues raised in fact put question to either keep or merge - a common problem with a huge range of quite inappropriate category trees from the very beginning where maritime activities never had adequate review...(or since) JarrahTree 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are occasionally overlapping but logically distinct concepts. For example, a company that makes rods for recreational fishing is not a seafood company. SFB 11:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Durham University cricketers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not Durham University Cricket Club which has had first-class status since 2001, but Durham MCCU (and as it was known prior to 2011, Durham UCCE). This would be in line with other MCC University categories such as Category:Oxford UCCE cricketers (which really needs renaming to Oxford MCCU cricketers), Category:Cambridge MCCU cricketers and Category:Cardiff MCCU cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jawaharlal Nehru Award laureates[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. I'll place this on the manual page in case someone wants to make a list. MER-C 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, many articles do not even mention the award, e.g. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (listify if necessary). This is clearly an award largely being given as part of diplomacy to foreign heads of state etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the award is not defining enough to recipients to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons[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 per option A. MER-C 09:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creative Commons (CC) is the organization; contributions are made under a CC license. I am neutral on "contributing" versus "who contribute"—most of this tree uses "contributing" but there are more categories overall that use "who contribute" (see here).
Also... While they are not part of this nomination, I would also appreciate thoughts about the subcategories. Which format should they use? (1) Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons #.# (2) Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons #.# license. (3) Wikipedians contributing under CC #.#. (4) Wikipedians contributing under a CC #.# license. If you would be kind enough to indicate 1, 2, 3, or 4, I will start a follow-up nomination once this one closes. (Pinging the category's creator, User:HarJIT) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (A) as the most natural phrasing. I'd leave the idea of whether this tree should be split by specific license to the users actually making use of it. SFB 11:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maney Publishing academic journals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 09:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per [1]. Maney has been fully acquired by T&F and every journal they had is now published by T&F directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Routledge is a T&F imprint. Randykitty's point is a good one, but the outcome should still be to eliminate the subject, but this may need to be done manually by categorising them according to their current imprint. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the distinction is meaningful much. If you go at [2] and you select 'Journals', you're taking to T&F. If you go to product search and you search for Dutch Crossing you find nothing. The only indication that Routledge is involved seems to be minor branding on the cover. But sure, merge those from Routledge to Category:Routledge academic journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the infoboxes in most of the articles still need to be updated. Once that is done, it will become clear which article should be moved to which category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though some are published under the Routledge imprint, that imprint still belongs to T&F, thus recategorisation to T&F is valid. Let the topic experts categorise these articles more finely, if desired. SFB 12:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mario Party games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "games" disambiguation is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zone of the Enders games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. MER-C 09:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Originally a game series, it does not require a games subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the series combines both games and anime, thus the category split is appropriate. Compare for example Category:Silent Hill games. SFB 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire[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:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires. MER-C 10:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to a new category. Every of the nominated categories has only 1 or 2 members, of which 1 Wikipedian, User:Jethwarp, is interested in all four. Category:Wikipedians interested in the British Empire‎ can be added as a subcategory of the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British Empire is not included in this nomination. There are more than enough wikipedians interested in that topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less people interested / more wikipedians interested distinction cannot be applied as criteria for nomination, I feel a uniform rule should apply to all category Jethwarp (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Listed buildings and structures[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:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country. Categories listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If there's supposed to be a distinction between these two categories, it's not evident. Not quite sure which way the merge should be done, but since the Listed buildings article is UK-specific, I'm suggesting the older cat be retained in order to avoid confusion. Paul_012 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Most of the content which should probably fall under this tree is currently categorised under the sister cat Category:Heritage registers by country. Ideally, there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register, but since, in most cases, both seem to be categorised under the same eponymous categories (e.g., Category:Listed buildings in England contains both the subcats for the buildings and for the lists), perhaps we could forego the distinction and accept that everything be categorised under the same tree? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we have Category:Heritage registers, with its subcat scheme Category:Heritage registers by country: perfectly standard. IMO there should be no listed buildings within it as a listed building is not a heritage register. Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register should be a subcat scheme for Category:Buildings and structures; maybe it should be renamed to Category:Listed buildings and structures by heritage register. It is also standard to include lists with articles, usually sorted at the top, eg Category:People educated at Eton College. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, do not oppose reversed merge, for example Category:Listed buildings in Sweden has not been diffused by heritage register so it should not be moved under a by heritage register parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense. Also, subcategorising by country would probably be a better option, seeing as there don't seem to be any categories that cover international heritage registers. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some merger but not necessarily as nom. The appropriate target would by one with a "by country" split (together with World Heritage sites. Listed buildings is indeed a UK concept, but it looks as if there is something similar in Hong Kong and several other countries. I think US has buildings on NHBR (I may have the term wrong). In England, the buildings appear on a list maintained by Historic England; in Wales by CADW; and other bodies elsewhere. To say this is not a register is mere semantics (nit-picking). The next split below a national one should be by register. In UK siblings include registered parks and gardens and scheduled ancient monuments. The category suggested as a target is the parent to a tree that needs tidying up, so that there is only one Hong Kong child and one UK child. I appreciate that some of my suggested siblings do not necessarily concern buildings and structures. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
voted again below.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest merging both to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country as a container for various national categories. This target would need some restructuring. The headnote should explain that it is intended to include all forms of legal protection, whether formally listing, scheduling, or registering. Where a country has multiple registers (as UK does), there will need to be a national parent covering all the registers, etc. Part of my objective is to have something that American buildings on historical registers can be parented by. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not against this variant, but it does require supplementary restructuring indeed, so if this goes ahead it should probably be listed at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Peterkingiron's alternative, as nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Buildings and structures in the State of Palestine, etc. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian architecture by period[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; in the first case, the one sub-cat is already in the target, and in the second case, the one sub-cat is a style rather than a date range. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional rogues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope, two contradictory descriptions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have removed one description, which was mischievously added by an anon (who also vandalised Rogue Pictures). The remaining description "good at hissatsus" is unclear; if it refers to hissatsu series, it does not seem suitable for categorisation. There are currently only three member pages. Consider emptying (not merging) and redirecting to Category:Villains. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an often used term, but has no agreed upon definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "People" is not descriptive of this category's contents, since the majority of the Category:Fictional characters tree is not specific to human characters. (In fact, a large section is specific to non‑human characters — see Category:Fictional characters by species.) No clear distinction from Category:Fictional characters by attribute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7&oldid=1073192339"