Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11

[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in North America

[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. I suggest opening another CfD if other alternatives (such as moving the subcats and/or parents) are to be considered. No consensus for Catholic/Roman Catholic alternative move. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: revert out-of-process move by user:Tahc in 2015. This category does not contain articles on individual church buildings, but only sub-categories named Roman Catholic churches in the Caribbean etc; all its sub-cats are "churches", "cathedrals" or "parishes and churches", and the siblings for all other continents within Category:Roman Catholic churches by continent use "Roman Catholic churches in Foo". The rationale stated in Tahc's edit summary was "to match parent & child cats", but it did not match the child cats either then or now. ([1]) After that move, many other categories were nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings, with a consensus to use "churches", but this one was overlooked in that nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
Contrary to Fayenatic's comments above, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in North America currently has parent-categories with mis-matching and with matching names. tahc chat 21:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I deem that better change as well. We can afford that accuracy by natural disambiguation in the category tree. PPEMES (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, just for procedural reasons, because it was an out-of-process move. However, substantively it is a poor idea to use "churches" for "church buildings" in cases of organizations that in itself are called "a church". This problem also occurs in the Anglican Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church in Sweden, etc. Using "church" for "church building" is too ambiguous in those instances. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't there seem to be a de facto convention about "Roman Catholic" inside Category:Latin Church category tree? Or you think that this category should include church buildings both Latin and Eastern Catholic? PPEMES (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert There are also plenty of Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in North America, and the contrast with Roman Catholic church buildings is useful. Place Clichy (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Discussion in previous CfDs has often found that church buildings is preferable to churches in denominational categories. This is especially true for branches of Christianity where the use of church in the meaning of church body is very prevalent (and therefore the confusion with church building more likely), such as Catholicism, Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy and in general those which follow the episcopal polity. Place Clichy (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (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:Famous Youtubers

[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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear definition of what makes a Youtuber "famous" other than POV. Otherwise, just over-categorisation of notable Youtubers already included in parent category:YouTubers. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (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:Vajiralongkorn

[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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One eponymous article. Uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2019 (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:Cryonics pioneers

[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. MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The field of cryonics is a pseudoscience, yet we have two very small categories, one for cryonicists and one for cryonics "pioneers", arbitrarily defined. There is significant overlap: three of the 13 articles in this category (25%) are in both. The more general category has only 8 entries. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 11 August 2019 (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:Kla Project albums

[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: speedy delete (G5). MER-C 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT only has a single entry. AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 11 August 2019 (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:Domains (country subdivision)

[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. MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since Japan is the only country to have had domains as a subdivision, it seems unnecessary to have this as a parent category here. Geolodus (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2019 (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 Christian Duguay (director)

[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: do not rename. MER-C 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Department of redundancy (department). "Films directed by" already disambiguates this category as pertaining to the film director rather than the actor, so it's not necessary to double-disambiguate. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep. If the other Christian Duguay was in a completely different field, I'd agree - but actors do often turn their hand to directing, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to think that these films were directed by the actor. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:31, 11 August 2019 (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:Vivaldi (web browser)

[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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:24, 11 August 2019 (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:Mage Knight

[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. MER-C 09:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:21, 11 August 2019 (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:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners

[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 09:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD, most articles do not even mention the prize, besides article Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize does not exist, it is merely a redirect to a section that does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:21, 11 August 2019 (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:Robot video games

[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:Video games about robots. MER-C 09:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with other, similar subcategories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 11 August 2019 (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:Skye

[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 as nominated. MER-C 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would fall within the spirit of WP:C2D but for the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Category:Isle of Skye. Therefore a new CFD is need. "Isle of Skye" is used by the Ordnance Survey and thus isn't comparable to "London Town", a better comparison would be River Thames. Although there is Isle of Skye (bar) in the United States and 2 in Canada that don't even have WP articles the island in Scotland is clearly by far the primary topic for the term "Isle of Skye" while there are quite a few other articles at Skye (disambiguation). The primacy for "Isle of Skye" is probably clearer than London or Paris so while "Isle of Skye" might be slightly ambiguous still it should be at the base name. If it was though necessary to disambiguate then Category:Isle of Skye, Scotland could be used but unlike Category:Perth and Category:Plymouth this doesn't seem necessary. The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Isle of Skye and its sub categories also use "Isle of Skye" of which I renamed last year (Commons:Category:Skye is a DAB page). Even though the articles disambiguated by the island generally just use "Skye" (such as Stein, Skye) the Commons categories use "Isle of Skye" (such as Commons:Category:Stein, Isle of Skye). There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 31#Scottish islands for if "on" or "in" should be used but there was no consensus for that, thus the proposed titles here don't change the in>on (and vice versa such as Category:Castles in Skye to Category:Castles in the Isle of Skye) because the discussion here is just for including "Isle of" in the titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:17, 11 August 2019 (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:Alabama Slammers

[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. MER-C 09:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One eponymous article. Uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (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.
[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. No predjudice for recreation if a desire for the category is demonstrated in the future. I am aware of the non-admin closure guidelines, but have decided to IAR and close as delete even though it's not recommended. Please tell me if you believe I should stop. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note: this template is solely populated by Template:Interlanguage link.

With more than 58,013 members, this category is currently unusable. It has the most ridiculous system I have seen thus far of listing pages with 1 link as starting with "A", then for links under "B", etc. This should really just be five categories actually sorted alphabetically instead of one that is pretty much just broken.

The old system might have made sense at one point, but it doesn't now which is the only thing that really matters for a category. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete (having read the explanation below of how the category could be used). Afaics none of the relevant process pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red) point editors to this category so how are relevant editors supposed to know about it? Normally automated systems (as this is) are preferable to systems that rely on manual updating (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/French/Buildings was last updated in 2015), but this doesn't appear very useful - e.g. if it tells me that there's an ILL on a page about a US Army unit I need to search that page to find whether it's a link about a French village, a German general, an Italian historian etc - and what's worse is that the ILL may itself be a redlink (i.e. there's no article in the other language anyway). DexDor (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support splitting, but I don't like the proposed names. It is about pages that include an interlanguage link template containing 1, 2, 3, etc. foreign language links, not about pages that include 1, 2, 3, etc. interlanguage link template links. (It does not count the links in total, but the links per template). The use for the higher categories is obvious: notable topics needing an article in English. If the category page is clear enough, there is no need for a formal process page. —Kusma (t·c) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. It's still unclear what's the use of this category. Please someone should give examples of how it's useful apart from categorizing for the sake of it.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mentioned this discussion at Template talk:Interlanguage link. —Kusma (t·c) 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also leaning delete. I can see a use for maintenance-categories for interlanguage links to specific languages, but I don't see how subcategorizing them by number of links is useful and unless/until we have per-language subcategories the parent category is too big to be useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Kusma: I wasn't aware that was how the category is populated. If that's the case, this template's documentation certainly needs updating to make that a bit more clear.
    I'd also support an alternative proposed name. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because no practical use has been demonstrated. As for splitting: the template does that already, in a fashion. Inspecting the template code shows that it groups articles into the category via a sort key: if a single template invocation contains 1 foreign Wikilink, sort key=A, for 2 links it's B, ... to L for 12 links, but currently H (for 8) is the highest. However, the programming logic is flawed because it doesn't take into account that a local English link may already exist; see Adelaide, Abbess of Vilich which has 8 interwiki links for Beuel none of which is used because there's a local article. The template works as expected at Gerlind Reinshagen which points to Claus Peymann in 8 other Wikipedias. On the other hand, the Category:Interlanguage link template existing link is useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure pages with many interlanguage links probably present an issue, especially templates.
For the other items mentioned above we want to know how many times a page is redlinked, which the "Wanted pages" special page should help us with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Seeing the lack of interest, I don't really mind the category ending up deleted, as long as we can agree that any interested WikiProject or group of editors could simply introduce new tracking categories. At the moment, no such groups seem to exist; anyway, I think the discussion of what could be done in the future should not happen at CFD, but at the template talk page (after all, it is about changing the template more than about anything else). —Kusma (t·c) 09:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Renata3: Ensure that the pings are followed by your signature rather than after per Help:Notifications. @Jc86035, David Eppstein, Michael Bednarek, Rich Farmbrough, and DexDor: Pinging remaining users per above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:08, 1 September 2019 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11&oldid=1138412050"