Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Tom.Reding (talk | contribs)

4 user groups
4,566,546 edits
undo
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758: The ~3.5 month long RfC, and any WikiProject-specific discussion, act as the requisite merger discussion; +purpose of these CfDs
Line 170: Line 170:
* '''Support''' – there's no point in a large set of categories each of which hold only two subcategories. (This is a repeated problem which occurs when editors try to exactly replicate a taxonomic hierarchy in related categories, regardless of the resulting tiny size of some of them.) [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – there's no point in a large set of categories each of which hold only two subcategories. (This is a repeated problem which occurs when editors try to exactly replicate a taxonomic hierarchy in related categories, regardless of the resulting tiny size of some of them.) [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would support this in principle, but I can't bring myself to support a nom which appears to be based on a prior depopulation of the nominated categories. That pre-empts the CFD discusison, and makes it pointless because there is nothing left to keep. The categories should have been nominated for merger, and any depopulation done only ''after'' a consenus to do so was formed. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would support this in principle, but I can't bring myself to support a nom which appears to be based on a prior depopulation of the nominated categories. That pre-empts the CFD discusison, and makes it pointless because there is nothing left to keep. The categories should have been nominated for merger, and any depopulation done only ''after'' a consenus to do so was formed. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|BrownHairedGirl}} if not for the ~3.5 month long RfC, that definitely would have been an option. The RfC, and any WikiProject-specific discussion, act as the requisite merger discussion, and no great number of articles have been edited as a result. I'd say between 0~10 articles have been edited over the course of these 6 CfDs & 383 categories so far (container categories misplaced on articles not withstanding; I think ''all'' were container, so the # is probably 0, but I'm hedging my bets with an upper limit of 10). These CfDs also serve several purposes: they act as 1) a 'speak now or forever hold your peace' notification, 2) a reminder and solidification of the prevailing consensus, to both inform project members and to dissuade future forking, and 3) a historical record at [[WT:TREE]] and each of the associated WikiProjects. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


==== Teachers colleges ====
==== Teachers colleges ====

Revision as of 13:56, 13 October 2018

< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

Category:UNI.T

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON. The group Uni.T lasted a grand total of five months together, and there is no chance this category can realistically be populated to satisfy WP:SMALLCAT. ℯxplicit 23:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty lepidoptera categories, an undesired, sparsely populated, intermediate category between the Category:Insects described in 1901-level and Category:Butterflies described in 1901/Category:Moths described in 1901-level, per recent WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See WP:INSECTS discussion here, and related CfD here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE, WT:INSECTS, & WT:LEPID notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is no point in my opinion in gathering together 2 of the subcats of Category:Insects described in 1957 say into Lepidoptera. Oculi (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there's no point in a large set of categories each of which hold only two subcategories. (This is a repeated problem which occurs when editors try to exactly replicate a taxonomic hierarchy in related categories, regardless of the resulting tiny size of some of them.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support this in principle, but I can't bring myself to support a nom which appears to be based on a prior depopulation of the nominated categories. That pre-empts the CFD discusison, and makes it pointless because there is nothing left to keep. The categories should have been nominated for merger, and any depopulation done only after a consenus to do so was formed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: if not for the ~3.5 month long RfC, that definitely would have been an option. The RfC, and any WikiProject-specific discussion, act as the requisite merger discussion, and no great number of articles have been edited as a result. I'd say between 0~10 articles have been edited over the course of these 6 CfDs & 383 categories so far (container categories misplaced on articles not withstanding; I think all were container, so the # is probably 0, but I'm hedging my bets with an upper limit of 10). These CfDs also serve several purposes: they act as 1) a 'speak now or forever hold your peace' notification, 2) a reminder and solidification of the prevailing consensus, to both inform project members and to dissuade future forking, and 3) a historical record at WT:TREE and each of the associated WikiProjects.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers colleges

Option A:
Propose merging Category:Teachers colleges to Category:Education schools
Option B:
Propose merging Category:Education schools to Category:Teachers colleges
Propose renaming Category:Education schools by country to Category:Teachers colleges by country
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in China to Category:Teachers colleges in China
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Japan‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Japan
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Poland‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Russia‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Russia
Nominator's rationale: merge (option A) or reverse merge (option B). The previous attempt of merging Category:Education schools and Category:Teachers colleges failed, not because because anyone objected merging, but because there was an issue about the 'correct' name of the category. Here is a new attempt and please note that "no consensus" is worse than either of the two proposals because it will leave us with two categories with an identical scope. Also note that in option B a large number of country subcats have not been included in the nomination; the ones that have not been listed here should be decided upon individually, taking in mind WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White Power

Nominator's rationale: The stated criteria is "The main articles for this category are White Power and White Power movement." There are no such articles, those are redirects to White pride and White supremacy respectively. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I just noticed that the redirects are also in this category. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the Cat main template. I created the category in preparation of creating the White Power article which will help document the historical use of the phrase and it's impact on past and today's political and social situation. It's important to note that the category doesn't just cover the White Power article but everything that encompasses the term such as hate groups (KKK, American Nazi Party), the person coined the term (Rockwell), and related articles (white power music, Encyclopedia of White Power). Dash9Z (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and possibly revisit this issue if we are going to have an established White Power article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jessica Jones seasons

Nominator's rationale: This category, and its parent category, both seem rather small. The parent category has only 2 articles - one about the show, the other is a list of characters in the show. Should we simply merge this list of seasons with the overall category for the TV series? – numbermaniac 07:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BioWare companions

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, the subject does not merit such an overly specific category. As far as I can tell, pretty much all Bioware characters who have articles here are party members for the main character's party. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I originally created the category, I figure I might as well give the context for why I made it. I noticed a lot of overall coverage of BioWare companions taken in aggregate -- who was the best, the worst, what were recurring archetypes BioWare used and how game romance was handled, etc. So I felt it made a degree of sense to just give that a category outside of the usual franchise-specific character ones. But yes, the vast majority of articles we have on BW characters are on companions -- the obvious exceptions being Revan, Commander Shepard and some of the listy character articles, but these are rare enough that, even for a hypothetical person just searching for info on BioWare companions, they probably wouldn't have much of a problem. On the record I do think the idea of RPG party members is probably distinct from the more general idea of a 'sidekick', though I'm not now actually advocating that be split into a separate category. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars droid characters

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - there are only 5 actual members of the category, and no need for such a specific category when there is not one for "Star Wars Imperial characters" or "Star Wars rebel characters". There is no reason the characters can't simply be in the "Star Wars characters" and "Fictional robots" categories at the same time. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even 5 is not SMALLCAT. As I write there are 7 including 1 redirect; redirects can and should be categorised. (This said any categorisation of L3-37 is difficult to support. One would like at least a sentence on L3-37.) Oculi (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Months in the 2000s

Nominator's rationale: I don't really get the purpose of this category but I would like to have more experienced editors take a look L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2018 Commonwealth Games sports templates

Nominator's rationale: For each year, the same type of template is split across two categories. DH85868993 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the templates in the "sports templates" categories are navboxes, so all that would be left in the "sports templates" categories would be the "navigational boxes" subcategories. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no prob with that.
If non-navbox templates are created, they have a home. If not, there's still an extra path to the cats with content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_12&oldid=863851005"