Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5

Category:State and local political sex scandals in the United States

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: purge. bibliomaniac15 04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge biographies, non-convicted people do not belong in this category, convicted people are already in Category:American politicians convicted of sex offences. Quite a few politicians were involved in an extramarrital affair which in itself is not a criminal offense. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, adultery is illegal in many states, just not prosecuted. Support purge. (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep delete nomination is again conflating criminality with scandal. They are different, as a reading of the various documented articles here clearly shows. A scandal is something that is notorious in the public eye, regardless of whether there is a crime. The articles clearly show scandal. Not being convicted of something is no reason to ignore reliable source material. See Sex scandal for discussion. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the nomination is: keep notable scandals (that permit a scandal article in its own right), don't keep biographies with a non-notable scandal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you would only be happy if this category just contained the 6 or 7 such articles. This is hardly helpful to the readers of WP seeking such information, not knowing that WP editors expect them to read articles on every politician to try to gather up the facts. This is simply silliness, not required for other subjects categorized in WP. Is it 'political' or 'sex' that so twists the mind here? Just more whitewashing, it seems. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination also aims at keeping the category, with all articles that are about scandals (but not articles about people). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination will leave only 6 or 7 articles in this category, gutting and destroying it. Scandals are ALWAYS about people, by definition. Hmains (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that broad definition, then EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is about people : ) - jc37 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is just too subjective in application. The word "scandal" is tossed around rather freely. I really am wondering if maybe we shouldn't be categorising using "scandal" as a criteria, at all. If kept, inclusion should be as narrow as possible, supported by clear references. (Not merely some attention-grabbing headline, for example.) - jc37 23:56, 25 March 2022 (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:Songs about days

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. bibliomaniac15 04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are over 20 songs in this category with the title "Someday". Are such songs really about days?
WP:SHAREDNAME and just plain overcategorization by a very generalized topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Someday? Really? I could see having Category:Songs about days of the week but this is just overkill. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs pruning, not deletion. I Don't Like Mondays is centred on Monday, the beginning of the work week. Graduation Day (The Four Freshmen song) is about a specific day, graduation day.--Mvqr (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem is not with the actual category but whether the pages in the category have supporting evidence to be included in said category, as per
    WP:CATV. This is only an issue if the editor adding the category is introducing original research or not at least skimming the article beforehand to learn about the song's true meaning, therefore adding an incorrect category. There are some cases where "day" is being used metaphorically, but this problem is not rooted within the category itself. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Who's going to do this maintenance before it gets completely out of hand? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects, in 24 hours time I am going to go through this category and remove any entry which does not mention clearly in the text that the ‘song is about a day.’
This will mean any entry which I find in contradiction of WP:Categorization which states Para 2, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.
I will also remove any article which is also in a subcat of Category:Songs about days along with any redirects, for obvious reasons, and instrumentals (which are not songs).
Perhaps this was a job for someone who said, ‘purge?’--Richhoncho (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth reviewing now that contents have been purged to just 6 songs and 2 sub-cats.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:04, 5 March 2022 (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:Bridges and tunnels in London

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:Bridges in London. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A rather unnecessary name right now as there is a subcategory "Tunnels in London". Bridges and tunnels aren't grouped together like this for any other city from what I have seen. As to category changes, it would be best to put "Railway tunnels in London" into "Tunnels in London" and "Tunnels in London" would just need to have the category "Transport infrastructure in London", and apart from that, no major changes would have to be done. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2022 (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:LGBT history in the United States by region

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:LGBT history in the United States. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only a subcategory, a redirect and a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply added after relisting) The United States simply has a lot of content throughout en.wp, that is unavoidable. In this case with 9 subcategories and 54 articles it is not bad at all. Besides for order and overlook it does not help to keep only one redirect and one template apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I cant see that we need a container category when the only real content is Category:LGBT history in the United States by stateRathfelder (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2022 (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:Virtualization software

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: split non-software contents into the topic cat Category:Virtualization. bibliomaniac15 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "software" here is superfluous, and the general term is simply "virtualization". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose then split per Marcocapelle. Software implements virtualization, is not be same thing as what is being implemented. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose then split per Marcocapelle. The subsequent Category:Virtualization software should only be a container cat. - jc37 00:28, 26 March 2022 (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:Sport in Canada

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:Sports in Canada. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Match eponymous article naming. It appears Canada uses the plural "Sports" as opposed to "Sport". See 2017 discussion on the article move. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surely that's changing the topic of the category? Sport is sport in general (and would not be pluralised), sports would mean individual sports, no? Grutness...wha? 02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. There appear to be a mishmash of "sport" and "sports" subcategories in both this folder and the equivalent US one. Looks like a general tidy-up is needed. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's really kind of a mishmash. There's really no right or wrong answer here, and you regularly see both "sport" and "sports" used in different sources — the government department responsible for athletic programs is called Sport Canada rather than Sports Canada, but media are more likely to use "sports" rather than "sport" (e.g. the main television sports channels are "The Sports Network" and "Sportsnet"), so both sides of a sport vs. sports argument can point to different sources as proof that their preference is more "standard". We have the same problem with date formatting: government style tends toward "British" DMY, while media style leans more strongly toward "American" MDY, so both sides of the date formatting argument can point to "proof" that their preference is more "standard" — so the only rule we've ever been able to get consensus for in Canadian articles is "either date format is acceptable, and other than fixing internal inconsistencies within a single article, articles should never be changed to force the opposite of the existing date format".
I'm personally inclined to treat media usage as more definitive for actual Canadian speech than government officialese, but that's me: other Canadians might very well prefer to follow the government usage. (The anonymous IP in 2017 who argued that we should use "sport" because "sports" is an "Americanism" is, however, far too typical: most of the time, "we should take every opportunity we can to remove American influences from our culture by always automatically aligning ourselves with British usage in any matter where American and British usage differ" is the only reason that's actually given for why we should write "sport" or "DMY". Yet somehow nobody ever argues that we should also say "lift" instead of "elevator" or "lorry" instead of "truck", but I digress.) But either way, I'd recommend that whichever form is chosen here, the other one should be kept as a categoryredirect regardless. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's then just follow the article name, as nominated. Besides sport(s) is more media-related than government-related. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should use "sportS", because we should not be using Britishism in all cases, as Canadian English is not British English, as some people in the Commonwealth seem to assume. Though I think the government uses "sport" because it is the same in French and English, thus commonality, and not because it looks British and not American. As for the date thing, I tend to prefer the logical version (ie. ordered in order) versus the idiosyncratic version (ie. US, just like its measurement system, a mess of different things) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So I looked at the RM linked in the nom, and it seems to be "I have heard...", which is
    reliable sources for this. With that in mind, speedy rename to match article name, but no prejudice against a renom if such sources can be found. - jc37 00:35, 26 March 2022 (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:Animation controversies in film

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:Film controversies. Purge of films and merge remainder to merge target Kbdank71 00:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is A) misnamed and B) redundant. The first, because really it should be "Controversial animation films"; and two, because the difference between "controversial animated films" and "controversial live picture films" is not one worth having two separate categories RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem of the category, and also of the target, is its vagueness. Films may be controversial for all sorts of reasons, categories should indicate the reason why a film is controversial. So the nominated category might be deleted, and the target containerized. But if that does not happen a merge will not solve the problem, then a rename to Category:Controversial animation films is the best action. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a fair point, the category (and also its parent) should contain articles about controversies, not about films. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2022 (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:HR objects

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:Bright Star Catalogue objects. bibliomaniac15 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:C2D-style situation; Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects and similar use the full name too. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 5 March 2022 (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:Types of garden by historical empire

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:Types of garden by country of origin. bibliomaniac15 04:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a trivial intersection, for types of gardens it does not matter whether the country of origin was a historical empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (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:English gardens

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:English gardens. Essentially the same as deleting it. bibliomaniac15 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope. Note that a merge to Category:Types of garden by country of origin is not needed, there is already English landscape garden in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2022 (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.

Geography and place templates

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Geography and place templates

Category:Taxa named by Sonia Fisch-Muller

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. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category unlikely to be populated further. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    WP:SMALLCAT does seem to apply here, at present, but I believe that this category will be populated further. See Sonia Fisch-Muller taxa from Wikispecies. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose Looking at Category:Taxa by author this seems to be a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme which is an exception to SMALLCAT for good reasons. --Trialpears (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure whether Category:Taxa by author should even exist (maybe it needs a rename or to be converted to a list?). But for now, Weak Keep as part of that structure. - jc37 01:37, 26 March 2022 (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:Media coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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:
soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for just one entry? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:25, 5 March 2022 (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:Rocko's Modern Life video games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:
soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the games is of the Rocko's Modern Life franchise, at it is the only game ever made based solely on the IP. The other two are Nicktoons games that have elements of the show. Essentially,
WP:SMALLCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2022 (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:Xanthopimpla

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:
soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT; not every genus needs a category, and this is the only such category in the Category:Pimplinae subfamily. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 00:08, 5 March 2022 (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/2022_March_5&oldid=1084523297"