Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13

Category:Inuit from the Northwest Territories

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Inuit from the Northwest Territories. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories that aren't really distinguishing their entries into distinct groups, but instead are
defining or useful distinction. Entries should certainly be returned to Category:Canadian Inuit people, but there's no value in retaining these as category redirects. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2018 (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:Critter of the Week

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Critter of the Week. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
non-defining indirect association for Mike Dickison. The only other thing that was in the category was an internal Wikiproject task list, but I've already removed it as those are not supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2018 (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:Indian radio programs

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Indian radio programs. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. I'm not an expert on whether "programs" or "programmes" is more normative in Indian English, so I have no personal opinion either way -- but in the past couple of weeks, inexperienced editors have been trying to create "programmes" as a second category that was added to articles alongside "programs". We obviously don't need to maintain two separate categories for the same class of topic which differ only in their spelling, but the category can obviously be renamed if there's a valid
WP:ENGVAR reason why the "programmes" spelling should be preferred. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (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.

English schools

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. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are at CFDS. There was some dispute about the target since C2D doesn't apply to ambiguous titles even if the article is the primary topic in this case there is
WP:UKPLACE Disambiguation should not normally be to England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) and we use commas to disambiguate, see Category:People educated by school in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. My only concern here is to avoid ambiguity, by retaining some disambiguator. This proposal merely changes the disambiguator in one case, and changes the format in the other.
I am not sure that the change of Roedean School from "England" to "West Sussex" is particularly helpful, because it seems to me me that extra precision is not needed ... and since this is an educational institution rather than a place, I am not sure that
WP:UKPLACE
applies.
Similarly, I am not sure that UKPLACE applies to the format of the dab in Silverdale School (Sheffield).
I would be inclined to go with whatever option fits most closely with other schools in England, but I'm not sufficiently concerned about this to check. Just please make sure that whatever is done, a {{Category redirect}} is retained from the old title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The county/town are the most common form of disambiguation and there is no other disambiguation guideline for schools so I assume that UKPLACE is standard there like most at Category:People educated by school in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2018 (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:Wikpedidians who are a absent-minded creature

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: deleted by @Shirt58, who first removed their userpage from the category[1], thereby emptying it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I credit the user (though not the admin. who created this cat from the user's redlink) for what I assume is a try for humor, but this misspelled, bad grammar page has no place in the category tree. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't care whether or not this category exists. What I do care about is that it should not end up as a redlink, permanently cluttering up the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. I created it last year precisely to remove it from the cleanup list.
This categ currently contains only one page: User:Shirt58, which I think is the only page it has ever contained.
@
WP:USERCAT
's requirement that "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
So please, Shirt58, would you consider removing this cat from your userpage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 14 December 2018 (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:Romantic thriller

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Besides a single subcategory, this is an empty category. I don't feel that Romantic thrillers are frequently used outside of film. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:36, 13 December 2018 (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:Lists of American action-adventure television series episodes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think all the articles in this category would qualify as "action-adventure". Maybe a few but the scheme for "Lists of action-adventure series episodes" doesn't exist. I suggest renaming to "List of American action television series episodes" as a more logical child category name based on parents Category:Lists of American television series episodes and Category:Lists of action television series episodes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:30, 13 December 2018 (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:Romantic drama comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category outside of subcategory. While you might be able to find some comics that are considered romantic, you won't really find many that are also a drama JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:30, 13 December 2018 (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:Sunni Muslim dynasties

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarity and simplicity: Sunni and Shia both imply the "Muslim" part. Constantine ✍ 15:06, 13 December 2018 (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:Roman fortifications in Roman Egypt

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rather unlikely that there are Roman fortifications built during the Persian, Greek, Ottoman etc. periods of Egyptian history Constantine ✍ 15:02, 13 December 2018 (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:Shaw Media newspapers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Shaw Media (United States). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Speedy discussion is available here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasoning I gave in the speedy. In this case, (as in the Amazon cases and many others: Ford, etc.),
    WP:CONCISE
    trumps the unnecessary slavish adherence to the article name, which is driven solely by disambiguation considerations that don't apply to this cat. 17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. The fact that the much larger (and
    Postmedia picked off and split up Canwest's media holdings, with Shaw getting the broadcast assets and Postmedia getting the newspapers, at the same time, and it's not even seven days since the last time I overheard somebody get fuzzed about this and think Shaw actually owns some of the newspapers. So the fact that there isn't an effective disambiguation conflict here doesn't mean there isn't still a real one. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per the main article. In terms of naming on Wikipedia, Shaw Media refers to an entirely different entity. Clarity and consistency with widely applied naming conventions both trump conciseness. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2018 (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:McClatchy publications

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:McClatchy publications. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is
The McClatchy Company, and it's also a subcategory of Category:The McClatchy Company. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:56, 13 December 2018 (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:Health agencies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is what it claims to be, but the contents are an assortment of different kinds of agency, presumably because the name is a bit ambiguous. Health agencies need to be differentiated from healthcare agencies. I'm not entirely convinced it's a useful category. It seems to reflect the way these things are organized in the USA, which is not how they are done in many countries. Trying to distinguish between government ministries and government agencies isn't very productive. Rathfelder (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2018 (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.

Political user categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Political user categories are forbidden by
WP:VOTESTACKING
.
Most of these have been categorized as "philosophies" in
4, 5. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
VegaDark is right to note that that NRA category is slightly different to the 6 other categories, in that it is the only one based on membership of a particular organisation. However, editorial collaboration on topics relating to any organisation should be based on partisan groupings of whether editors are members of that organisation. Regardless of the nature of the organisation — trades union, business association, professional association, political group of any hue or purpose, writers club, sports club or whatever — editors should be grouped by their interest in collaboration rather than by their membership or lack thereof.
Note that there is extensive precedent for deleting usercats by organisational membership. See WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians_by_organization and also WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians_by_political_party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 15 December 2018 (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:Demosistō

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. Subcat can stay in other two categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 13 December 2018 (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/2018_December_13&oldid=882408400"