[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

[edit]

Category:Commercial video games with freely available source code

[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 10:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Source-available is more concise than with freely available source code. Also, Proprietary is a better descriptor than Commercial, since it explicitly excludes free and open-source software. — Newslinger talk 21:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The suggested title is hard to parse. Also, not all of the source code is proprietary. Some of it is legitimately open source. The emphasis is on the games having been created or published commercially, not the license of the software. ➧datumizer  ☎  03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​What are your thoughts on renaming the category to Category:Source-available video games? I'm not sure how an editor would discern whether a game is "commercial", since many games in the category are simply published on the developer's website under a source-available license. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​ The "Distinction from free software and open-source software" section is troubling. Also, articles about games "simply published on the developer's website" are likely to be deleted quickly, and thus will not remain in the category very long. ➧datumizer  ☎  03:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. The next section explains how FOSS are also source-available. Still, the emphasis is supposed to be on commercial titles. (Notable ones in articles with citations from reliable sources.) ➧datumizer  ☎  03:57, 27 August 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:Male critics of feminism

[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. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by gender per WP:EGRS TM 20:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the question to be asked by each commentator is whether female criticism of feminism is inherently different from male criticism of feminism. If not, it does not represent a notable distinction.--TM 21:28, 9 September 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:Female critics of feminism

[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. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by gender per WP:EGRS. TM 20:36, 26 August 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.

Medieval Italy, Venice, Florence, Genoa, Papal States, Naples, Sicily

[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. Timrollpickering 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just a single article in every category. Note that this is not a nomination to discuss anachronism (Italy versus the Italian city states), for such a discussion there should be a nomination of centuries as well. The only thing that will happen with this proposal is that both Italy and the the Italian city states will get fewer and better populated categories, and having fewer categories may be of help to set up a future anachronism discussion.
Note: this nomination is very similar to these two earlier nominations, both closed as merge: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_12#Medieval_Germany and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_16. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a contributor to such categories, and honestly, do not feel strongly one way or another. I preferred to state when a building was "finished" rather than "establishment". There may be room for a category year by year "buildings completed in ...", especially after 1300.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 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:Protostomes of French Guiana

[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. Timrollpickering 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_6#Category:Protostomes_by_location (this category wasn't in the Protostomes category tree so was missed from that CFD). DexDor (talk) 17:40, 26 August 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 popes, primates, and patriarchs

[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. Timrollpickering 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bit tricky. Not sure about this one. I could see it remaining as preexistingly, but still see some problems worth evaluating. Correct me if I'm wrong: I identify multiple connotations of the term "primate" in a religious sense (c.f. Primate (bishop)), but notably at least one of them being arguably a collective term for leading and/or highest representing offices within religious (Christian) organisations. Except obvious cases where the official title and the denominationally neutral connotation coincide, we have Lists of Abunas (categorised in Category:Lists of patriarchs), and Presiding bishop (categorised in Category:Primates (religion)). Relatedly, we have a Category:Lists of bishops and archbishops category tree, variably containing "Lists of bishops and archebishops of X", "Lists of bishops of X", and "Lists of archbishops of X". Now, the idea would be for a Category:Lists of primates (religion) to contain all of these, including less frequent title-holders such as popes, patriarchs, abunas, presiding bishops, etc. Arguably, Category:Primates (religion) seems to confirm/mirror this solution, doesn't it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:14, 26 August 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:Perceived judicial activism in the United States

[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. Timrollpickering 15:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:POV and indiscriminate. Perceived by whom? No meaningful threshold is possible, and "judicial activism" is ever more frequently a rhetorical attack on decisions that reach results contrary to someone's political preferences. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 26 August 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 Roman Catholic popes

[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:Lists of Catholic popes. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: List of popes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, why would anyone here wish to confuse things? In particular, how would the above proposal make things more confusing? Until you sort that out, let's consider your comment confusing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is just renaming for the sake of renaming. It does not bring additional clarity, and, as has been pointed out already, it will lead to confusion with popes of other confessions or denominations. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:57, 22 September 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 Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in X

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 18#Category:Lists of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in X

Category:Lists of Roman Catholics

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 18#Category:Lists of Roman Catholics

Category:Rivers of the Gippsland

[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. Timrollpickering 15:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correction. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:44, 26 August 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:Towns in the Gippsland

[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. Timrollpickering 15:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correction. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:43, 26 August 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:People associated with Archaeological Survey of India

[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. Timrollpickering 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, to align the format with subcategories of Category:People by company. The people in this category were working for the Archaeological Survey of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 26 August 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:Plants described in the 1750s

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty plant decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE & WT:PLANTS notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oculi, search for "decade". Also, I'm doing this separately for each wikiproject, since there might be islands of resistance at a per-wikiproject level, but the removal of decadal 'middlemen' categories is generally favored in the RFC.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an opinion about this specific case, but in general I have seen instances when diffusion by year is leading to many near-empty categories while diffusion by century leads to quite crowded categories and in these cases diffusion by decade is a nice in-between solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in general I can see that being a concern, but for these taxonomy cases the century cats would have at most 100 subcats, which can all be shown on the same page, which project members agree is better than separating them into groups of 10.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:20, 26 August 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:Fashion journalism

[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. Timrollpickering 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category currently is inaccurate. Fashion publications and writers mainly feature bloggers or columnists. Calling many of the people in this category "journalists" is misleading because they mostly publish opinion pieces (such as style trends, fashion show analysis, etc.) which is inherently biased. None of these people exclusively write factual information as a typical journalist would. Category:Fashion journalists is very different from Category:Business and financial journalists or Category:Crime journalists. I propose renaming to Category:Fashion criticism, like the categories for writers on similar topics like music, theatre, and art. Woebegone (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These are (or should be) about people writing for newspapers and magazines about fashion. As such they are entitled to be called journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Music critics and film critics also write for newspapers and magazines, but they are called critics because they analyze music and film. Most of the people in those categories do not report on music, film, theatre, artworks, and other types of art, which is why those categories are not called journalists. Can you explain why fashion critics/journalists are different? Woebegone (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the function of fashion magazines, columns, etc is to report on fashion not to criticise it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 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:Teachers colleges

[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. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. Education schools is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 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:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all wikiprojects

[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. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not truly a WikiProject participation category but rather a quasi-wiki-philosophy category based on the rejection of WikiProject membership. I propose, at a minimum, moving it to a name that is shorter (Category:Wikipedians who participate in all WikiProjects) or, better yet, more descriptive (Category:Wikipedians who reject WikiProject membership). However, unlike most wiki-philosophy user categories, there is no established wiki-philosophy for rejecting WikiProject membership, and so my first preference is to delete the category and simply let users express this opinion via the userbox, without generating an opinion-based category grouping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename to ".... participate in all wikiprojects" (as that changes the meaning). Delete unless someone provides a reasonable explanation of how the category could be useful. DexDor (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, I've struck that portion of my proposal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also expect that a userbox is sufficient and a category is not needed, but let's check this also out with User:SMcCandlish who created the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I usually ping the category creator in the nomination, but forgot to do so this time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a rather recent wiki-philosophical/wiki-political, userbox-related category, like many others we have (in particular, it's a pro-WP:CONLEVEL, anti-WP:OWNership one, and serves the specific purpose of deflating "your view doesn't count since you're not a member of this project" bullshit). So, Keep. No actual deletion rationale has been provided; the above is a combination of WP:IDONTKNOWIT / WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff (don't understand what it is, not interested in it, ergo it must be bad). There is also no particular reason that such an internal category must have a short name; it has nothing to do with readers and article categorization, and it's name was chosen very carefully (including use of the word "participants" vs. "members" in paticular, persuant to a CfD years ago that moved a bunch of then-extant "WikiProject Foo members" categories to use the word "participants", shortly after the community nuked WP:Esperanza on the basis that everything on WP is open to everyone and there are no no membership organizations, no special clubs, no walled-garden cliques. Neither of the suggested renames get the entire point across: "who participate in" isn't true, unless you literally go project by project and participate in every single one of them. "who reject WikiProject membership" is confusingly misleading (implying refusal to participate in them, to most people who read it), and missing half of the point: it's not just rejection of membership per se, but of the notion that prior involvement is a requirement or confers privilege. There's an important difference between considering oneself a de facto participant in every project, vs. actively working in all of them, or refusing to work in any of them. Finally, WP:CONCISE applies to articles and by extension to article titles; it isn't really an argument for excessive shortening of project categories, particularly when doing so results in ambiguity or loss of context. "Concise" doesn't just means "short", but short while conveying the same message.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I might put the userbox on my user page (agreeing with the philosophy), I can't imagine how it can be useful to know who else has this userbox on their user page. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing that clarification, and I agree with most everything you stated. On the matter of the category's name, a shorter name is not a must but, all else being equal, is generally preferred. However, based on your explanation above (and assuming the category is kept), I am content with Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all WikiProjects (fixing capitalization) or perhaps the slightly shorter Category:Wikipedians who claim participation in all WikiProjects. On the matter of the deletion rationale, it is essentially that the category appears to serve no useful function, i.e. I understand the userbox but do not see the value added by a category that groups users who use the userbox. As DexDor stated above, what's unclear is "how the category [itself] could be useful", distinguishing the function of a category (to group related pages) from a userbox (to express a view/sentiment). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 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:Songs written by Greeeen

[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. Timrollpickering 15:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not do songwriters by band name - which is the marketing term used to sell records. Members of a band can change, but the songwriting credits do not. Richhoncho (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS Here is a sample previous discussion which also refers to other discussions. Discussion here --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer:. I always thought they were a songwriting duo, and as such, although I am not in favour of conjoined songwriters in any event, decided others might disagree with me. Happy to leave the Warren Bros to your more specialist knowledge.I do think Peach Pickers (and others) should be demerged for the very reasons you state. (Why should a songwriter have 2 entries in the same cat?). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 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:Jewish mathematicians who died in the Holocaust

[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. ℯxplicit 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having both Category:Mathematicians who died in the Holocaust and Category:Jewish mathematicians who died in the Holocaust seems redundant, seeing as nearly all members off the former would also be in the latter. Kyuko (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 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_August_26&oldid=871694132"