Trichome

thcscience_admin
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21[edit]

Television task forces[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29#Television_task_forces (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming with all sub-cats, either according to Option A or Option B:
Option A – Match part of task force name
Option B – Avoid unnecessary plurals and capitals
Note 1: in option A, I have added plurals to the ones nominated by Ricky to match the format in the earlier nominations by Gonnym.
Note 2: I have not listed all the sub-cats here, as I judged that a short selection would be clearer. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Support option A. There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding this naming style. First, there was an argument raised before that "television" or "episode" are not proper names. I agree. However, that wasn't what was proposed. What was proposed is a proper name. The task force are called "Television game shows" and "Episode coverage". The "task force" is the descriptive part of it. Can a better naming style be used? Sure. If the tasks forced used a consistent style of "<task force&ght; task force" as in "Category:NA-Class Television stations task force articles" that would be much better. However, that isn't proposed and it also isn't used by WP:TV or almost any other task force. Using the name as proposed in option 1 is also found in other task forces of other WPs such as Category:NA-Class Abandoned Drafts articles, Category:NA-Class Abortion articles and Category:NA-Class Academic Journal articles and many many others. Meaning the style proposed is also WP:CONSISTENT with one of the styles used. Using the lowercase version would make the category tree also inconsistent with the parent categories. Especially in the case of lowercase + singular. There is a reason why C2C exists and that is because it makes working with categories easier. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (!vote changed below) per Gonnym and per WP:CONSISTENT.
Consistency isn't just a neatness principle. It's also an organisational principle, because templates and other tools rely on consistent naming. In this case, the WikiProject templates which populate the categories and the header templates which create the categories all use the project/task force name to make the categories. If the task force name and the category name are not aligned, that just makes life harder for the editors who create these categories. (Those editors are those like Le Deluge who plug away at Special:WantedCategories, doing a vital but largely un-noticed task of maintenance. Please don't make their life harder).
I usually agree with Fayenatic and often agree with Armbrust, but in this case I think that they have misplaced priorities. Yes, grammar supports their preference for option B ... but grammatical perfection is a low priority for these categories. These are not reader-facing cats; they are project cats, whose purpose is solely to assist WikiProjects. Editors who monitor and maintain the articles within a project's scope will be much better served by consistency of naming than by grammatical perfection.
It's a pity that these simple WP:C2C renamings have not been speedied. It is unhelpful to the WikiProjects for this to be delayed for at last 7 days until this discussion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changing my !vote) Option A as first choice. Otherwise Option D, per Fayenatic's proposal below. I am not entirely sure that the Option D principle of including the words "task force" is needed, but if that path is needed to reach agreement on a name, then I'll go with it. @Gonnym: can you accept Option D as a fallback?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but only if we forgo the bureaucracy and just add all the other task forces straight into the bot queue, without the needless speedy nomination progress. I know I'm not going to waste my time tagging all those categories again and there really is no reason to. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mechanism, a one-off fix to the WikiProject template changes the name used in the assessment categories. (In these cases, {{WikiProject Television}} was updated to use the target names in Option A for all the sub-categories, in advance of the Speedy nomination. That's why all the nominated "NA-" categories are already empty. Such timing is generally undesirable as it makes it harder to look at examples of the categories in use.) It is no skin off a task force's nose for the category names to be only a partial match with the task force itself. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic, I think you're missing the main problem with the inconsistency. Sure, one edit to the project banner changes the name ... but that project banner populates up to two dozen categories, which is where the work lies. So for each task force, that's up to two dozen categories where you want to create an inconsistency between the task force name and the category name.
    What exactly is the benefit to anyone from creating this inconsistency? If these categories were descriptive titles, then would be a case for natural English ... but the whole purpose of these categories is that they relate to a task force, so they should use the proper name of the task force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: what is the extra work? Using an unusual assessment in the banner creates a red-linked category, OK; why would it be more difficult to create a page for that category if it does not exactly match the task force name? – Fayenatic London 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: because the editor creating the category has to ferret around to find out the precise name of the taskforce, in order to link it from the category. Much easier to have the same name for both taskforce and category.
This may seem like a trivial issue, but many thousands of such categories appear on Special:WantedCategories every year, and there is only a small number of editors who do the tedious work of creating them. It's a tedious slog, and it's mighty irritating to have that job made harder. It may only take a minute or two to ferret out the taskforce name, but a minute or two times several thousand adds up to a lot of editorial time. The number of active editors is declining, so we should be making maintenance easier, not creating rods for each others' backs.
So I ask again: what exactly is the perceived gain to offset the downside of making the job harder? I really struggle to see any advantage to mean or beast in creating this discrepancy and breaching WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining why names that do not fully match the task force adds to manual workload. Has the tedious work of creating assessment categories been considered as a request for a new bot task, like the monthly maintenance categories that are automatically created?
As for C2C, in case anyone misreads this nomination, it is not intended to make the "NA-Class" categories inconsistent in any way with those of other classes within their WikiProject/task force. I just picked one class's sub-cats to make a concise nomination, and chose NA-Class because they are well-populated. If consistency is best, then why not use Option D: Category:Reality television task force articles by quality, Category:NA-Class Reality television task force articles etc? I would have no objection to that, and they would be consistent with the parents e.g. Category:Reality television task force articles which all include "task force" in the category names. I am not going to ask for the many series-related task force sub-categories to be renamed to include "task force", but it would be helpful for these non-series topic-related categories to refer to the full proper noun (a specific task force; they currently only refer to it indirectly by using only selected words of the task force name). – Fayenatic London 14:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the best title naming-wise, however a comment and a caveat. That naming style is not consistent at all with how almost all of the other categories in wikipedia are titled. Some are like option A, others like option B and a very small minority does neither (which include this style). However, if the majority agree that that concern in itself should not cause an issue, than I'm fine with the addition of a caveat, that this naming style should be applied to all other TV task forces (found in Category:WikiProject Television task forces). The project at the very least should be consistent within itself. --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic, I'm not aware of any bot request for this task. I don't think that a bot is feasible, because there are too many variables involved. The monthly maintenance categories are an easy bot job because a) the bot can just create the page with a single parameterless template: {{Monthly clean-up category}}, so no assessment is required; b) the bot is supplied with a list of which types of category to create; c) the condition for creation is the start of a new month. None of those factors applies here.
Making these assessment categories fully consistent with the parent project or task force seems like a good idea in principle. But if that is to be done, then the most of the benefits of simplifying templates would follow only if was applied to all projects and task forces, so that for example:
In principle, I like that idea, because it should in theory allow the category-header templates to be simplified towards a parameterless state ... but I think there may be some cases where that could get complicated. I guesstimate that there are about 50,000 project assessment categories, so any such proposal should be discussed at some central location, and then formulated as a proposal for a RFC.
For now, I don't see any harm in applying it just to the television task forces. But that's without seeing exactly what's involved, so I withhold final judgement on Option-D until someone sets out a full list of the changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the subcategories are mostly empty. Is this task force still active at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A. As to the setup, there is no point in discussing what the categories should be if we don't make the template Template:WikiProject Television capable of creating it. This discussion belongs at the template talk page. As noted above, WantedCategories is an annoying and frustrating task and the act of figuring out how the template operates and categorizing and preparing these massively annoying speedy requests (just done to get the template-pointed categories fixed) is clearly not worth my time. In the future, the people who changed the template should be the ones to ask for the speedy renaming as they broke it but I see why no one bothers to do this kind of administrative follow-up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Option D, i.e. option A + the words "task force". If I understand correctly, the category name stem for each task force is determined separately in {{WikiProject Television}}. (Some may also be generated by other project banners, e.g. Scottish Television from WP Scotland, but again each one can be named anything in the banner template.) Options B/C are therefore feasible, but it has now been explained that they would result in more work when setting up new cats, so I relent from pursuing them. Option D uses the full proper noun for the task force, so that would justify using the capital letters and plurals. The advantage of Option D is that an editor stumbling across these categories, e.g. via a search or in HotCat, gets more help in figuring out what they are for. I dimly remember that it took me a long time to see the connection between assessment categories and WikiProjects. Newbies sometimes currently add new articles straight into inappropriate cats, e.g. see TV3 Mentor, and hopefully they would do this less if the category name included "task force".
As for the other (series-related) task forces, whose assessment categories Gonnym suggests should be renamed likewise with "task force", I propose that if consensus for Option D can be reached here, then Gonnym or other interested editors should be permitted to move assessment category pages directly, under WP:G6. Any such actions should still observe the checks recommended at WP:CFDAI, especially checking backlinks to the old name. – Fayenatic London 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women political candidates[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 as a container category (which it currently is) the wub "?!" 00:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I struggle with the Category:political candidates category in general because running for office in and of itself is not defining, but I do not see how this intersection of political candidacy (which is an event, not an occupation) and gender passes WP:CATGENDER. TM 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change into a container category. The subcats at present do seem to be defining: Hillary Clinton for instance would probably see it as other than a mere event. Oculi (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important for such disciplines as women's history and political history, as well as history in general, so as an encyclopedia we reflect that. Brandmeistertalk 14:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brandmeister's argument. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize per Oculi. "Political candidates" in general is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is only a container category, I will withdraw my nomination.--TM 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Pinging Namiba as it is only a container category currently. J947 (c), at 03:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, as a container cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is only a container and the content relates to Presidential elections, where the losing candidates are usually notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2020 (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:Outer Planes[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: selective merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few articles, only "Outer Plane" and "Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)" should be upmerged. TTN (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons fiends[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. For the record, (i) the target was merged to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 27; (ii) as of today there are still 5 articles and 74 redirects in this category. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also upmerge to "Fictional demons and devils." Few remaining articles, and that number is going to be reduced even more. Redirects should be moved to "Category:Dungeons & Dragons element redirects to lists‎" if not already listed there. TTN (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2020 (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:Romance-speaking countries and 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: delete. MER-C 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are leftovers from 2 previous discussions which resulted in deletion for countries and territories by language family (8 January and 17 January). Actually, they were created by the main opposer in the course of the first discussion, and a similarly-named Italic-speaking countries and territories was deleted following the second discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I am watching these topics due to recent work and debate concerning Germanic speaking peoples. What I now understand clearly is that (1) national/ethnic groupings might be held together by mutually intelligible dialects, but not mutually un-intelligible language families that you have to study to understand (2) many examples show that when sources or WP editors speak of language-FAMILY-united nations it is ONLY ever connected to claims connecting the modern peoples to a common ancestry or something else uniting them apart from just the theoretical language family. (Consider that while Jamaicans are obviously an English speaking people, no one wanted to call them a Germanic speaking people. English is a real language, Germanic is a family, and you can see how they are treated differently.) There has been a lot of confusion created by these types of "language family = ethnic family" categories and it has spilled over into serious article problems, where attempts are made to try to force articles to fit with such 19th century conceptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The last contributor puts it well. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2020 (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:Disney Revival[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_5#Category:Disney_Revival (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective term that appears to be used only in certain corners of Disney fandom. Trivialist (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added some project banners on the talk page of this and the one below, which may cause them to appear on Alerts pages and therefore draw more participation. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 27 February 2020 (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:Disney Experimental Era[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_5#Category:Disney Experimental Era (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective term that appears to be used only in certain corners of Disney fandom. Trivialist (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2020 (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:Criminals from Middlesex[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 - from Hayes, which is now in Greater London. Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it should be populated, not deleted. Jim Michael (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is not sensible to set up a load of occupational categories for Middlesex when we already have them for London. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this about Middlesex before it became part of London? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It only includes people who were from what was Middlesex at the time. We can't for example say that a person who was born in Harrow in 1900 was from London. Jim Michael (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But we can say they are from Harrow. And I don't think we will find any biographies of people who are said to be criminals from Middlesex. Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have enough articles for cats such as C:Criminals from Harrow.
I'd be surprised if we don't have at least a few bio articles of criminals who were from what was at the time Middlesex. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then the merge target should be changed to Category:People from Middlesex. I can support that per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (but without prejudice to re-creation, if it can be properly populated) -- I would have no difficulty in keeping this category if it was populated with people active before 1965 (when Greater London Council took over) and more particualrly before 1889, when County of London was created, but the one person in the category was brought up in Oxfordshire and apparently active in London only from 1964, with most of his offending probably after the GLC was active. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2020 (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.

Visual arts[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 (Talk) 16:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per parent category Category:Visual arts. Note that Category:Art redirects to Category:Visual arts. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT. Krakkos (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally to exclude matters relating to dramatic arts, but the change may not be necessary in some cases, such as exhibitions and libraries; also animals. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I can see why it is not necessary to rename exhibitions and libraries; but I would still rename the animals category thus aligning with all "Art by" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing Category:Arts. That's why! Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me a work of art, or a performance, would belong in Category:Art, and a type of art would belong in Category:Arts. Perhaps that distinction is too subtle, and Category:Art shoud redirect to Category:Arts. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much subtle, as rather individual and personal. Do you have any RS endorsing that distinction? Most people wouldn't expect that at all. Certainly don't agree with that change. I think in the past I have supported a change from "Arts" to "The arts" in the article, which might make it clearer. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Mona Lisa, Hamlet, Beethoven's 9th etc. are examples of "art", but they are not "arts". Painting, playwriting, composing music etc. are arts. The arts create works of art, so the distinction is minor. But the arts, and art, are not limited to visual art. No reliable source would say that all art is visual. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't exactly what you said before. There are of course several related meanings of "art"; the OED lists 14 main meanings. This is exactly why this change is a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Sionk's comments below. We should unredirect Category:Art, transfer pages or categories that clearly are not about visual arts to Category:Art, and then one-by-one consider the above categories. Some may belong in Category:Visual arts, some may not, and some should perhaps be split. (unsigned)
      • That's going in exactly the wrong direction. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because, as Aymatth2 points out, "Art" stands in its own right as a subject (much of the content of the "Visual arts" category is about "Art", which surely is broader than purely visual - there's sound art and conceptual art for starters). Though I notice I amended the target of the "Art" category from "Arts" to "Visual arts", maybe it's time we had a proper discussion about why "Art" is redirected at all? Sionk (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost all "of the content of the "Visual arts" category is about "Art"", though modern developments have admittedly blurred boundaries slightly at the edges. There's a reason why sound art is not classified as music - it behaves like art in being shown in galleries & bought by museums etc, and other things. There is almost always some visual element to that and to conceptual art (which would otherwise be literature). Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And notice that the main article is Art. WP:CONSISTENT would determine that most of these categories should remain as they are. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Visual artists was merged in the opposite direction at this Cfd discussion in 2017. Sionk (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Art" has long meant "visual art" on WP, not all the Arts, but not everyone understands this. This will help to clarify. Some removals may be needed here and there. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, the content of these categories is about e.g. architecture, painting and sculpture, in other words about forms of art as described in the main article Visual arts. Hence I do not understand much about the opposition. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do the non-visual artists and their art get categorised if these categories are re-named? Not all art is visual. Sionk (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Artists regularly has to be cleaned out of rappers etc etc, ie "recording artists". By non-visual artists you presumably mean them, writers, composers , poets, etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, as I said above, I mean sound artists, conceptual artists, even olfactory artists. Not all artists use the visual. As I also said above, Category:Visual artists was moved to Category:Artists after a previous CfD, which is counter to what Marcopelle is trying to do here. Sionk (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's currently under Category:Art genres, which seems a perfectly sensible place for it to be. "Art" is (or it should be) a subcategory of "Arts". Sionk (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Aymatth2 and Sionk above.--Darwinek (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not seeing any downside, and it clarifies. Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - per Johnbod, Ewulp, Randy and WP:UCS and my own sense of reality...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (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:Spree shootings[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. If re-nominating, please make it a group nomination along with its sub-cats (or at least the most populated ones). – Fayenatic London 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively WP:OVERLAPCAT where the only difference between the two is multiple locations. But even then a mass shooting may also include multiple locations. Spree shooting redirects to Spree killer while Mass shooting has its own article. Tagged only the head category so that the rest could be merged upon consensus on this one. Brandmeistertalk 08:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a significant difference, despite some shootings being both mass & spree. Not all spree shootings are mass; not all mass shootings are spree. Jim Michael (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, can you give an example of each? DexDor (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very moot distinction. Indeed, many dictionaries do not draw a distinct line that uniquely separates it from a mass shooting: Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Collins. Per this, "While many experts agree with the general description of a spree killer, the term is often dropped and mass or serial murder is used in its place". Brandmeistertalk 08:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinct difference. The terms sometimes being misused doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them correctly. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The abovementioned D.C. sniper attacks could be called mass shootings as well because in each attack many people died. I have yet to see a unique difference between them so that WP:OVERLAPCAT would not apply. Brandmeistertalk 14:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were many shootings with a small number of victims each time - hence not mass. Jim Michael (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, there is no point in merging the top category while leaving the subcategories untouched. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2020 (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-related media by region[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 (Talk) 13:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for two reasons:
  1. We never put continents and countries in categories by region, e.g. Category:Continents and Category:Countries don't have Category:Regions as a parent, in contrast we have a Category:Regions by continent. So the nominated category is actually empty because there aren't any regions in it
  2. It is an unnecessary extra category layer with only two subcategories which just hinders easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oposse 1) "I havn't seen this before therefore it's bad" is not an actual argument. 2) "Region" does not have to imply part of another country or continent, it simply means an area of surface on the planet. 3) The fact that you personally think it is not helpful doesn't mean that's true, for example I find it helpful to have country and continent categories within a region category because it cleans up the main category. Having to click one time does not mean it "hinders navigation".★Trekker (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It is an actual argument because it is a matter of WP:CONSISTENT. If you want to have it differently, consistently, you'd better start an RFC. 3) With this few subcategories it does not clean up the main category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2020 (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:Poisonous minerals[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 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Every mineral is poisonous. If not deleted it should be defined how poisonous a mineral needs to be for inclusion in this category (e.g. would all the articles in Category:Arsenate minerals belong)? DexDor (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2020 (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:Films directed by Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao[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 (Talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article: K. S. Prakash Rao. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, alternatively the article name could be reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:47, 21 February 2020 (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:Files copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation[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 (non-admin closure). @Fayenatic london: I'll leave it up to you to implement this. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparent duplicate, empty, and with no description as to how to populate. Doing a search (in all namespaces) on the category name revealed no template nor module usage so categorizing can only be done manually, unlike {{copyright by Wikimedia}}. Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:47, 21 February 2020 (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:Attacks in Nigeria in 2012[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 (Talk) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, since nearly all attacks concern terrorist incidents that have their own category tree. The two articles in 2014 should also be merged to Category:Attacks in 2014. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:47, 21 February 2020 (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:Animated Harley Quinn films[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 (Talk) 17:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few entries. There is no need for this category. ★Trekker (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, if not kept, this category and all film categories below should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Films by character was created in July of 2019. It, and all the single character subcats - including this one - should be deleted as overcategorisation. - jc37 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 21 February 2020 (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:Venom films[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 (Talk) 17:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few entries. There is no need for this category. ★Trekker (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, if not kept, this category should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Films by character was created in July of 2019. It, and all the single character subcats - including this one - should be deleted as overcategorisation. - jc37 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 21 February 2020 (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 rock violists[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, with one addition as stated below. – Fayenatic London 12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 5 rock violists in total after they are merged Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 21 February 2020 (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 rock oboists[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 per nomination. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1. Not necessary to divide the British category Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are five now, not one, but still worth doing. Grutness...wha? 21:17, 21 February 2020 (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:Identity[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: split. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, per main articles Identity (philosophy) and Identity (social science). As the first article explains, the two concepts are quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom, though I don't envy the person having to sort out this somewhat nebulous tangle of loosely connected articles. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom, though I also don't envy the person having to sort out this out! Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer of the discussion lists the discussion at Wikipedia:CFDWM I will sort it out. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2020 (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 educated at Westminster School[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 and disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The above two categories appear to be duplicates, the one without the London disambiguation being the newer one. The disambiguation is necessary to differentiate the category from Category:People educated at Westminster School, Adelaide as mentioned in this discussion. Thanks. 72 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Clear duplicate, and the disambiguator is needed.
Re-create the Category:People educated at Westminster School as a {{Category disambiguation}} page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (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.

Post-dissolution Netherlands Antilles[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) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
  1. Category:2011 in Netherlands Antilles sport
  2. Category:2011 in the Netherlands Antilles
  3. Category:2012 in Netherlands Antilles sport
  4. Category:2012 in the Netherlands Antilles
  5. Category:2013 in Netherlands Antilles sport
  6. Category:2013 in the Netherlands Antilles
  7. Category:2014 in Netherlands Antilles sport
  8. Category:2014 in the Netherlands Antilles
  9. Category:2015 establishments in the Netherlands Antilles
  10. Category:2015 in the Netherlands Antilles

Nominator's rationale: The Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on 10 October 2010, so these categories are anachronisms. I have depopulated them, and categorised the articles correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Fayenatic. It's proposal to delete them, but I forgot to include that first line. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, without prejudice against re-creating these pages as redirects if any successor categories are created in the future. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 23 February 2020 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_21

Leave a Reply