Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who spend way too much time editing Wikipedia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not meaningfully different from Category:Wikipedians with way too much time on their hands, which was deleted in 2017. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 9 February 2021 (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.

Catfish the TV show hosts[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2021 (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.

People from Aetolia-Acarnania[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, except do not merge Category:People from Astakos. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. This concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or few-article categories. The proposal is to merge all to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, so in this case we keep subcategories for: Agrinio (59,000 people), Missolonghi (18,000 people), Nafpaktos (20.000 people) and Amfilochia (10.000 people). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:People from Astakos already has 5 articles, making it a viable category even without assuming future growth, and that's the threshold that we seem to have set. Apart from that, it is also a city with a long recorded history, as it was an ancient city-state, and its current low population (6.500 people in the area the category refers to) is a result of the rapid depopulation of Greece outside of the major cities of Athens and Thessaloniki that has been happening during the last decades. Again this shouldn't matter much as there are already enough member articles anyway, but I'm just pointing it out. --Antondimak (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok fair enough if other discussants want to keep this borderline smallcat case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most for Now/Keep Atakos Most are small with little room for growth, but no objection to recreating any if they get up to 5+ articles.- RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most for Now/Keep Atakos --Just N. (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2021 (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:Leaders in the Civilization series[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this category meets the requirements of WP:CATDEFINING. Sources do not commonly and routinely define these historical individuals as being leaders in a video game. DrKay (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing real people (and long standing literary figures, as in over millenia) by having appeared in a set of computer games that have existed for less than 30 years is not at all a case of a trait that is anyway defining for the people involved. I say this as a person who has played Civiliation II, Civiliation III, and Civiliation IV way too much (although I have not played it at all for 9 years or more). This is not defining to the people involved at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also speaking as a fan since Civ I, this category clearly says something about the game but does not say anything about the leaders listed. This trivia could be a list, or a paragraph on the article about the game. Place Clichy (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • including it in the game article would be useful. in which one could show which game versions have which leaders. This is clearly not defining to the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a sort of PERFCAT. No objection to a list in a main article if desired. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is ultimately a WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a sort of PERFCAT. No objection to a list in a main article if desired. --Just N. (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (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.

Accidents and incidents by airline[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: improve English, and follow the structure of both Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline and Category:Airlines of Australia etc. This follows a first discussion here. @Good Olfactory, Marcocapelle, Carlossuarez46, Dimadick, and Justus Nussbaum: pinging participants. Place Clichy (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearer sentence structure, and clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inasmuch as the preposition "by" is ungrammatical here (we don't say "There have been many incidents by this airline"), "involving" would be semantically better anyway but would make the category names unwieldy, and in any case the new names ought to use the plural "airlines".  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "by" isn't a causation but an organization (such as writers by country, where countries don't cause writers). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, these are container categories for child categories about specific airlines, e.g. Category:Qantas accidents and incidents: the proposed names use by airline, not by airlines. I did not create any of these categories. However, the current name is pretty ungrammatical too: Airlines of the United States accidents cannot be considered satisfactory. I am open to other suggestions if you have one. Place Clichy (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, perhaps "by airline based in" would be even better - similar to "companies based in". Of course in this context "by" means split by, not caused by. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clarity per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clarity nom. This sound more precise. Fixer88 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clarity per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2021 (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:Airlines of Rhodesia accidents and incidents[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT just one subcategory for 1 airline and 1 accident in 1947. Unlikely to see significant expansion. No other country of Africa, or defunct country or colony has a subcategory at this level, and other accident categories for airlines of Africa are at the parent level. Place Clichy (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2021 (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:Kalgoorlie-Boulder[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:City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder. There may be some MOS:DASH issues but consensus seems to be that it's a discussion for another time. bibliomaniac15 19:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring in line with parent article City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder and other LGAs in Category:Local government areas of the Goldfields-Esperance region of Western Australia (please note, all others in the region are Shires, see Category:Local government areas of the Perth region of Western Australia for more appropriate examples). There currently isn't a Kalgoorlie-Boulder article, only a redirect, which points to Kalgoorlie, which in turn states (somewhat vaguely) "Kalgoorlie is a city in the Goldfields-Esperance region of Western Australia. It is sometimes referred to as Kalgoorlie-Boulder". The official name is City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder, as per offical website. Calistemon (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, Category:City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder is currently empty as I created it and then realised that Category:Kalgoorlie-Boulder exists, at which point I stopped and initiated this discussion. Calistemon (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it was a mess, this will help clean things up... JarrahTree 12:44, 9 February 2021 (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.

Television shows based on comics[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. (Also, categories were not tagged with Template:Cfr.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category Category:Television shows based on comics and the similarly named subcategories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, articles, insofar disambiguated, use "(TV series)", so this is a conflict between two forms of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some television-related categories that start with "Television series..." and others that start with "Television shows...", so there does seem to be a larger inconsistency. However, at least for this subset of cats, the majority use "Television shows based on..." so they should at least be made uniform, especially since that's how the parent cat is stylized. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an ENGVAR issue, where the nom is attempting to impose American usage on Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • the nom is attempting to impose American usage on Europe Where did you get that from? As stated, this is simply to harmonize all of the subcategories of Category:Television shows based on comics, of which these are the only to use "series" over "show". It isn't helpful to have 6 be inconsistent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For consistency with the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I'm not strictly against some renaming/unifying but the alternative solution with 'Television series' instead of 'Television shows' would be the better decision! --Just N. (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2021 (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:Logothetai ton oikeiakont[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely redirect due to typo error Constantine ✍ 11:57, 9 February 2021 (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:Logothetes ton oikeiakontes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely redirect, latinization of a non-existent, ungrammatical Greek form Constantine ✍ 11:29, 9 February 2021 (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:Logothetes tou genikon[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely redirect, latinization of a non-existent, ungrammatical Greek form Constantine ✍ 11:28, 9 February 2021 (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:Dial EV vehicles[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. bibliomaniac15 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only contents are Dial EV and redirects that redirect there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this has no navigational benefit at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per points above. It can always be recreated if those redirects ever become articles. -2pou (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of the White Falcon[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT-1, WP:OVERLAPCAT-2 and WP:OCAWARD-3 & 4)
The Order of the White Falcon was an award that was given out by the German Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach in 4 classes.
1: Foreign Leaders: When high ranking visitors came to the Grand Duchy, or vice versa, this was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. King George V, Sultan Abdul Hamid II and Tsar Alexander II of Russia are not remotely defined by this award. The vast majority of the 200+ articles in this category were given for this reason.
2: Local Royals: There are about 10 articles on local royalty, which is already well categorized under Category:House of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.)
3: German Military Leaders: Around 15 prominent generals and admirals who have no shortage of medals and mention this award in passing. (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.)
4: Civilians: There are only 3 of these I would have guessed the award would have been defining to them, but the articles don't treat it that way. (All 3, not just examples: 1, 2, 3.)
There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2021 (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:Order of May[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders and diplomats visit Argentina, or vice versa, the Order of May is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. US Admiral Vern Clark, Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Bohuslav Chňoupek and European Economic Community President Walter Hallstein are not remotely defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2021 (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://acceptablelobster.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_9&oldid=1008729109"