Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 38: Line 38:
*'''Delete''' I shouldn't think the nominator ''really'' needs to spell out how this is a disruptive category. Anyway, he has; joke's over. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I shouldn't think the nominator ''really'' needs to spell out how this is a disruptive category. Anyway, he has; joke's over. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' . Good thing this is up for discussion because if I had come across this cat I would probably have risked abusing ''my'' powers and summarily deleted it for the sheer nonsense it is. People need to learn to collaborate in a serious manner here and if they don't like it or if they are determined to attack the very fabric of the project they should simply leave quietly and fnd a new hobby. What the non-admins completely fail to recognise is that while the ''Wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit'', it's pretty much also the only website where all standard members already have extraordinary powers to police content and each other - far more so than they even would on their local fishing club forum. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' . Good thing this is up for discussion because if I had come across this cat I would probably have risked abusing ''my'' powers and summarily deleted it for the sheer nonsense it is. People need to learn to collaborate in a serious manner here and if they don't like it or if they are determined to attack the very fabric of the project they should simply leave quietly and fnd a new hobby. What the non-admins completely fail to recognise is that while the ''Wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit'', it's pretty much also the only website where all standard members already have extraordinary powers to police content and each other - far more so than they even would on their local fishing club forum. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:*Why are you so angry? This category wasn't an attack on you. You stated at [[WT:ER]] that I was the type of editor Wikipedia should not afford to lose. Now I am someone who should leave quietly and find another hobby? [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|Automatic]]''[[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|Strikeout]]''<small> ([[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|₵]])</small> 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Rename to [[:Category:Wikipedians who support abuse of power]]''', just to provoke those who use the category. Or better still, just '''delete''' it per Kupdung. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Rename to [[:Category:Wikipedians who support abuse of power]]''', just to provoke those who use the category. Or better still, just '''delete''' it per Kupdung. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Revision as of 22:44, 18 December 2013

< December 16 December 18 >

December 17

Category:Wikipedians in the Confederate States

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be making a sort of political statement. Not sure this is useful for collaboration. delete... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn right he's making a political statement. Speedily delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This category's creator and sole occupant displays a userbox "This user defends his Confederate heritage from charges of racism." Oh, and in case anyone is curious to see what that may mean, please see the diff from the category creator on the Talk page of the Kanye West article, related to an edit that he "fully supports." Yeah, maybe we shouldn't be enabling this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. We have long accepted a collaborative benefit in Category:Wikipdians by location and its sub-cats (I have just diffused this one to Category:Wikipedians by region in the United States‎).
    Editors hold many different political views, and while the view of this category creator are clearly a long way from mine, NPOV applies here. So, in assessing the collaborative benefits of this category, shouldn't we be leaving aside this editor's politics and assess the category's potential for neutral collaboration? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • What would the "collaborative benefits" be of maintaining a category for affiliation with a former white supremacist state, would be my question. And I don't believe the editor's repellent views about African Americans, and his use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to defend the racial history of the Confederacy, can be meaningfully set aside. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shawn: you are an experienced editor who knows that Wikipedia is NPOV about whether the Confederate States were a good or bad thing. We have a huge number of articles under Category:Confederate States of America, many of which could be improved and expanded. The Civil War has left a lot of physical traces, and I can see that editors on the ground there may benefit from collaborating on that history, whatever their view of it.
    Sure, the categ creator is soapboxing on his user page, but that's a separate issue. His userboxes will remain in place whatever happens to the category; the category is not the sopabox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if flushed out into the light, his userbox might might well be judged to fall afoul of content restrictions guidelines, but anyway, I still hold that this category does not aid in the creation of an encyclopedia and should be deleted. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bhg, this would be different if the category was Wikipedians interested in the history of the Confederate states and useful for collaboration, but it's not, he's making a claim to live in an entity which no longer exists, thus it can be seen as either provocative or a joke, and in either case should be deleted. It would be similar if someone said wikipedians who live in the independent kingdom of Scotland or other such nonsense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if that were the category name, I would have no objection. The period is richly historic. But again, I for one am convinced that this is not at all what's going on here. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are Wikipedian categories both by interest and by location. There is no reason why we couldn't have both for the Confederacy.
The fact that the entity no longer exists is irrelevant: the boundaries of the former confederacy can still be drawn on a map. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was about to propose renaming it to Category:Wikipedians in the former Confederate States. The Confederacy no longer exists, so the word "former" is needed to avoid any impression that en:wp takes a view either way on their demise. The fact that the creator of this category wanted to use it as a soapbox should not obscure its potential to facilitate collaboration on the history of the confederacy, by editors from whatever POV.
    However, when I thought further about it I realised if such a category could have only two functions: either as a superfluous {{container category}} for the relevant Wikipedian-by-state categories, or as a POV-pushing badge for those who want to identify with the confederacy. The latter is a statement of political position, and all Wikipedian by political ideology categories were deleted in 2007. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZX Spectrum programmers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should categorize video game programmers by the platform they developed for. This is basically a performer by performance categorization, thus disallowed per WP:OCAT. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who protest abuse of power

Nominator's rationale: In order to abuse my power at CFD, I'm ordering this category deleted. Sorry fellas. This is not the sort of category we want to keep, along with it's sibling categories "Wikipedians who fight the power" and "Wikipedians who stick it to the man". This should be salted, and all members thereof sent to the gulag (I kid!) :) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
real reasoning per Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories, this category is one or many of Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive; Categories which group users by dislikes of any type; Categories that are jokes/nonsense - and has no valuable purpose in continuing the purpose of the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on... seriously? I'm ordering you to change your !vote. Or are you fan of Siberia this time of year?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Lugnuts Condemned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A turning point of my career, in Korea... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest if the OP really wants this deleted, he should provide an actual rationale, or this ought to be closed as a joke. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I shouldn't think the nominator really needs to spell out how this is a disruptive category. Anyway, he has; joke's over. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Good thing this is up for discussion because if I had come across this cat I would probably have risked abusing my powers and summarily deleted it for the sheer nonsense it is. People need to learn to collaborate in a serious manner here and if they don't like it or if they are determined to attack the very fabric of the project they should simply leave quietly and fnd a new hobby. What the non-admins completely fail to recognise is that while the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit, it's pretty much also the only website where all standard members already have extraordinary powers to police content and each other - far more so than they even would on their local fishing club forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you so angry? This category wasn't an attack on you. You stated at WT:ER that I was the type of editor Wikipedia should not afford to lose. Now I am someone who should leave quietly and find another hobby? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians whose talk pages have been signed by SineBot

Nominator's rationale: delete, seems trivial, can't see how this category can be used to improve the wiki... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User:Terraflorin

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we allow users to create categories to host their pages. delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aboriginal Canadian Health

Nominator's rationale: Another opposed speedy. I believe this name best reflects our X of Y structure for both the Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Category:Health in Canada trees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also, the category name at present simply feels awkward. It reads as if it is missing a word. Health what? Resolute 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Government Ministers of Tanzania

Nominator's rationale: All ministers eventually become former ministers, one way or another; this is not defining at all. We shouldn't classify by the job someone once had, but doesn't anymore. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good point, changed to a merge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former members of the French Communist Party

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, all contents have since been moved elsewhere, and don't see the need to keep this as a redirect. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't usually categorise people by current/former status, so I see no need to keep this redirect.
    The category appears to have been emptied out-of-process by an editor who [Category:Former members of the French Communist Party: Difference between revisions redirected it] in January 2007. I don't approve of out-of-process merges like this, but after 8 years the statue of limitations on WP:TROUTings has long expired. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Janata Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Per my previous nomination, I think most "former + people's job" categories should be deleted. People change jobs, and allegiances, all the time, but I don't think this is worth categorizing on. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine with me, but we don't need to wait here to do that; why not just create it, populate it, and then let this one be deleted? It would be cleaner that way, since the scope is different--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the renamed category would be wider, but would include everyone in this category. So even if the new category is needed created first, we still need a merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, cat created and also changed to merger now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've no idea how common it is in other countries but in India and Pakistan it is incredibly common for politicians to switch political allegiances, often more than once. I can't recall the person but there is at least one BLP for an Indian politician who has moved five times. I really don't care less whether the general rule is that we do not usually categorise on a "former"/"current" basis: these people change their allegiances and cannot possibly be described as being a member of X party when in fact they are currently sitting in parliament as a member of Y party - that is ludicrous and potentially a violation of BLP. Perhaps it is less of an issue for other countries (eg: switches in the UK are not particularly common) but we are showing systemic bias if we do not recognise that these movements are common in some countries. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given Sitush's comments this seems a no-brainer. We can't have BLP entries in a party to which the BLP no longer belongs. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given BrownHairedGirl's comment below. This makes sense now that you explain it. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Sitush and @Dougweller: you both seem to miss a fundamental point of how the category system works. Categories are not split between current and former, because firstly it breaks up a set, and secondly it creates a maintenance nightmare. So biographical categories routinely contain both people (both living and dead) who currently hold an attribute, and those who formerly held it.
      For example, Ron Dellums and Ron Paul are both living and both categorised under Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives even though they have both left the House; Phil Gramm is still in Category:Texas Democrats, even tho he switched pert in 1983. Similarly, many Israeli politicians switch party repeatedly, but there are no "former" subcats of Category:Israeli politicians by party. (Prominent living politicians such as Ariel Sharon and President Shimon Peres are in multiple party categories, without any BLP concerns being raised).
      The category system "recognises" switches of party in exactly the same way as it "recognises" a change of career: by categorising under both the current and attribute and the former one, and explaining in the article which is which. I see no reason to make Indian politicians a special case when the lack of a "former" category works fine for every other aspect of BLPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands featuring former members of Phish

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a good way to classify bands. There is so much movement of players between different rock groups over time, and session players that move from band to band, that the resultant classification scheme would be enormous and overly complex and not really defining. I'm not aware of any other bands that have a "forme`r members of" classification (where is "former members of Pink Floyd" or "former members of the Beatles"!!??) - overall this is a bad category scheme. The bands in question could be listified and added to the Phish article, in a section on "what happened after Phish broke up" or something. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, or we will end up with a horrendously complex set of categories cluttering the articles on musicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator, per nom. The band's template essentially does the same thing. No reason to keep. — MusicMaker5376 03:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Marxists

Nominator's rationale: We have a somewhat stable consensus of accepting Category:People by former religion, but I don't think this should extend to political ideology. I can't quite put my finger on why, but I just think it's a step too far, because the result would be extending this to "former democrats" and "former republicans" and "former socialists" and so on and so forth. Political philosophies wax and wane, and changing one's political orientation is somehow less dramatic than changing one's religion. I lean towards, thus, delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teen films

However, since no evidence has been offered, I don't know whether these sub-genres are are rare, or just that the categories are underpopulated. Catscan suggests that the problem is simply underpopulation: for example, the intersection of Category:Teen films and Category:Thriller films shows 80 films.
That still doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to create an intersection category ... so I will ask WikiProject Film for input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject_Film has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow to better explain why I think that these categories should be deleted. These are not real genres of films. They are just films that happen to star teens. Google news searches for "teen science fiction" yields no results. "teen thriller" only gets you four, "teen action film" and "teen action movie" only yield one each, and neither "teen crime movie" nor "teen crime film" get any results. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge all to parents. I agree, these aren't really notable genres as far as I can tell.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen action films
Nominator's rationale: Only one film in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American teen action films
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen thriller films
Nominator's rationale: No articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American teen thriller films
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen science fiction films
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American teen science fiction films
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen crime films
Nominator's rationale: No articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American teen crime films
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video gaming operating systems

Nominator's rationale: Not much opportunity for expansion here. Single member is already in parent. I removed the other member, which was Category:Mobile operating systems as inappropriate since the bulk of those were not video gaming operating systems. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Video games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arcade games don't have multi-purpose operating systems (someone correct me if I'm wrong), at least nothing notable or general purpose. I think consoles are really the only ones running dedicated OSes. Everything else like PCs or mobiles support OSs that make video games non-exclusive. So I can't immediately think of anything to expand it with. May be OnLive, but even they are just running modified standard OSes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement

Nominator's rationale: Speedy renaming opposed. According to the lead of main article Child displacement, this much shorter term would seem to cover all the bases. While main article might be lacking in some areas, I believe the scope as outlined in its lead does give us a model for a move to a much more concise name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Sometimes, the category should and can be broader than the lead article. Child displacement is not sufficient IMHO, and I think it's useful to group these things together. If someone can come up with a better title go for it, but I'm not convinced for now. I'm going to update the catmain on this category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination and discussion
  • Category:Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement to Category:Child displacement. C2D: according to the lead of main article Child displacement, this much shorter term would seem to cover all the bases, if I understand correctly. If so, let's seize the opportunity. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I favor a shorter name, but the contents of the article Child displacement do not match what I would expect to see in a main article covering the topics of adoption, fostering, and orphan care. That's not to say that the proposed rename is not the best one, but just that a discussion might be useful in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's missing from the scope outlined in Child displacement? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That article focuses on the "removal or separation of children" but makes only passing mention of the subsequent possible stages of adoption, fostering, or orphan care. It would make sense, however, to include those topics under the general heading of 'child displacement', so consider my objection withdrawn. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That was my point in specifying that the WP:LEAD offers a summary of the article topic that does encompass the scope, whatever the state of the rest of the text. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose from me, as I do not think the above is clear-cut, and therefore this is not within the speedy criteria. A full discussion would be appropriate. Upmerging to category:child welfare might be better, as some of the contents of the nominated category are direct members/subcats of that parent. – Fayenatic London 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, taken to CfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are some serious issues with the main article as it stands; I note in particular that it claims boarding schools as a kind of displacement without qualification, when the reference being used does not support that. That said, I am inclined to support the renaming as the current category name tends to imply likeness of topics rather than the hierarchy that is the case. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copper company stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. My attempt to fill the current category found that many of the companies mine several minerals, not just copper. And filling a general mining category would be far easier. I have no problem with keeping the current template, though I would suggest its use strictly for companies that deal with copper only, while introducing a new {{mining-company-stub}} for general mining companies. Dawynn (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that creating a {Mining Company Stub} category would be a good idea. John Mortimore (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese former expatriate footballers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not differentiate between past and present players in any football-related category, no need for this to be the sole exception. The content of the two categories should therefore be merged and then 'Japanese former expatriate footballers' should be deleted. GiantSnowman 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cant it be put into a sub category. splitting between current and former i think is useful--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no need for these kind of sub-categories (after all, we don't have 'former Japanese footballers' etc.) and you're basically just saying WP:ILIKEIT, which is no reason to keep. GiantSnowman 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adult video games

Nominator's rationale: Article is redundant to Category:Erotic video games as the distinction between "Adult" and "Erotic" is so trivial and easily disputed that they should be considered the same thing. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Not sure what kind of distinction this category makes from the erotic one. Besides, "adult" does not necessarily mean sexual (although it usually does), so the other one described the content better. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not categorize games by rating classification, partly because ratings differ from country to country. So, while 'M'ature-rated games, could be considered "Adult" (although not necessarily erotic), a game rated 'M' in the US may have a lower age rating in Canada, Europe, or other regions. That said, the way this category is currently used, it is indistinguishable from erotic. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bonspiels

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Category:Bonspiels to Category:Curling competitions. Bonspiel is a type of the tournaments, but no categorization by round-robin tournaments in football or by play-off structure in ice hockey. NickSt (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree there should be one category, but is it possible that "bonspiel" is the correct home for all curling tournaments. it isn't really a subset of all curling tournaments, it is the name for a tournament in the sport of curling. Canada Hky (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bonspiel = curling competition. I oppose any move, as it would be redundant. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is talking about merging the two categories, not moving them. I think there should be one category (agree with the merge), but I think there should be discussion about what the top level is for curling. Canada Hky (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf the categories are merged then the title should be Category:Bonspiels because that is the proper term for a curling competition. Even at the 2013 Roar of the Rings the curlers were referring to the competition as a bonspiel.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge the term is "bonspiel"; Same reason why they are tennis matches and not games, and tennis games and not rounds, and tennis sets and not periods. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)*'[reply]
  • Oppose. Bonspiel is the terms for an individual event. Curling Competitions seems to have tours - competitions that cannot be classified as bonspiels - as the only direct contents. There seems to be a pragmatic distinction between them, not to mention that "bonspiel" is correct terminology. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, since we seem to be agreed they are much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 December 7 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus that the two categories should be merged if they have identical scope. In that case, the head article is bonspiel, so the category should follow that name. However Vanisaac asserts that a bonspiel is a particular type of curling competition, and that there are other types of competition; but Earl Andrew asserts that the two are identical. To allow an informed decision, please can editors try to resolve this point?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or reverse merge I have no strong feelings either way, though it seems Curling competitions is a bit more generic and may be able to include things which wouldn't really qualify as a bonspiel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bonspiel is a single curling event, like a track and field/athletics meet or a sailing regatta. A tour (when used to describe competition, versus an organization) is an entire competition season, comprised of multiple bonspiels. Generally, do "competition" categories encompass entire sporting seasons? isaacl (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoi

Nominator's rationale: I found these proposals incorrectly templated. I noticed that Shōnen-ai is a redirect to a section of Yaoi, so it seemed logical to merge the categories as well. Nevertheless, I would leave this proposal for the community and do not specifically endorse it, just nominate it in the correct way. Debresser (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is a separate section, then wouldn't these be proper subcategorization? Is it being contended that sections are not sufficient for categories, but separate articles are required to be written to have categories? (I don't see how it is logical to merge the categories based on redirects to sections, only that it is possible to merge them.) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although this needn't be a question of applying a rule, and the case is best judged on the merits of the specific category and articles involved, nevertheless, I had the same doubt myself, and that I why I wanted the community to consider this carefully. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Genocides

Nominator's rationale: I found this proposal incorrectly templated. As a matter of fact, these categories are closely related, and all of the 4 articles in the one that I propose to merge are in the other, which is larger. I have the idea that the one I propose to merge was perhaps created later, to promote the point of view that there is a genocide taking place here. But that is only a suspicion, and in any case should not really affect the merge discussion. I would like to add that the term "genocide" is the heavier term, and as such is harder to defend, including harder to source. If anything, the capital of "Genocides" should be removed. Debresser (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_17&oldid=586706174"