Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a00:23c5:e187:5f00:cd66:8e4:10bb:b558 (talk) at 14:33, 13 March 2020 (→‎Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

Category:Shakespearean scholars

Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations). Grutness...wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia community templates

Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Oroville, California

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found 6 more articles which have been added to the category, so keep. However, the parent category, Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation, has only one sub-category and should be deleted.--TM 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia

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: discussion merged into Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28#Category:Victorian-era_naval_ships_by_country (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "the discussion below" is (I think) this. DexDor (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 10 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:People with coronavirus disease 2019

Nominator's rationale: I don't believe that simply having the virus is WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's this category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean-American movement activists

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social security ministries

Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time. Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foremost disciples

Nominator's rationale: New name is more clear to the average reader who is not expert. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Smyrna, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Mr. Guye) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actor-model stubs

Nominator's rationale: Stub categories for a non-defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_9&oldid=945368656"