Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Category:Daughters of knights

[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic, just a familiar relationship to a fairly common rank Reywas92Talk 23:13, 28 March 2022 (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:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter

[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. With the exception of the nominator, there is unanimous numerical consensus that this category is useful for maintenance purposes. No convincing WP:PAG-based argument has been brought up to WP:DISCARD the "Oppose" !votes or consider this a local consensus. The page contents can be discussed on the cat's talk page, at Template talk:Infobox television or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Consensus can change and the category can be renominated for deletion in the future if, for instance, consensus is reached that this maintenance task should not performed. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No consensus. Reidgreg (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Bot needed, there may not be consensus for the category or that the condition it tracks is a problem. Category instructions state that under these conditions (clarify: the |name= parameter being the same as the article title) the parameter should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically while the infobox documentation states that the parameter Need not be used under these circumstances, suggesting it is optional. Discussion has indicated that while technically unneeded, the parameter has been useful to some editors. Meanwhile, the existence of the category has been taken as implied consensus for editors to perform thousands of edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is much more consensus among TV editors that this parameter should be removed than there is against it. The discussion there hasn't closed yet you jump ahead there? Your summarize of the discussion there is also incorrect - the parameter has been useful to some editors is plainly false, which you would know if you even edited TV articles (It's a bit strange seeing someone who as far as I can remember has never edited in the TV project pages come about with this deletion, which while that's your right, it's also my right to point that it does not look good). Also, regardless of this category or not, removing the parameter would still be possible and allowed. Also, is there a reason you haven't followed proper procedural and actually notified the category creator (me) of this discussion? Or is this yet another thing you do out of process? Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the nomination itself, but in reply to you haven't followed proper [procedure]... there is no mandate for notifying a page creator when their page has been nominated for deletion. I don't know why everyone (i.e. this is not a statement that only Gonnym has made) seems to think it is required. Primefac (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Nomination procedure only suggests notifying the creator, not doing so in a most-likely controversial discussion that can easily be missed in the watchlist doesn't sit right. Related to that Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template does not suggest, but says to notify. Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this doesn't sit right with you. I thought this forum might attract more discussion (editors can discuss, it's right there in the name) and be more likely to turn up relevant guidelines and policy. As for the personal comments (Wikipedia:Ad hominem) I won't take that bait. I'll just suggest that all editors are equal and that it is more productive to discuss edits rather than editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to discussion of the consensus or state a reasoning (consensus isn't just saying you have consensus, nor is it a vote). If there is consensus that it be removed, why is this not reflected in the infobox instructions? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, other than Need not be used if the name is the same as the article title as the infobox handles this automatically? Gonnym (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to patronize you, but you really don't seem to be grasping this. It says "Need not be used" – not "should not be used", "don't use it" or "remove it if present". Its use is optional, not discouraged, and certainly not prohibited. There are plenty of things which are technically unnecessary which are still of value to the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gonnym's argument above. Couldn't have said it better myself. This maintenance category is fine. — Paper Luigi T • C 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gonnym. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gonnym. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the opposers are agreeing to in the category creator's first paragraph. Is it There is much more consensus among TV editors? To me, "more consensus" sounds a lot like split/mixed/partial consensus, which is essentially 'no consensus'. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that you aren't closing discussions then. Unanimously ≠ consensus. Gonnym (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom or alter text: This may boil down to the word should on the category page (full context at top). It is used to recommend an editing practice in Wikipedia's voice, which makes it look an awful lot like a guideline or the summary of a guideline. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus (WP:PROPOSAL). Template messages that the categorized pages need "attention en masse" [or] to be edited at someone's earliest convenience reinforce the implication that there is broad consensus and encourages editors to quickly make edits without consideration of the merits (or drawbacks) of doing so. I'm not aware of any procedure for creating tracking categories (I failed to find such) but it seems there's been a serious misstep here. Is a category page the right place to recommend/initiate topic-wide editing practices? I haven't seen this on other tracking categories. It can link to a relevant guideline and summarize it, when such exist. In the absence of such, I feel that it should have a disclaimer like {{essay}}, change "should be removed" to "it may be removed with local consensus", have the category creator's signature to indicate it is a personal recommendation, or just delete it.
Note to closer: I would greatly appreciate a clear explanation for the close. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category page's wording can be revised to include a more liberal should in this case. The sentence in question, "Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically", can be changed to something like, "When this parameter matches PAGENAMEBASE, the |name= parameter is redundant, and it can safely be removed as long as it does not conflict with readability or accessibility for editing the article." This would give more discrepancy to editors on when to remove the parameter, but it would not greatly limit them if they chose to remove it. — Paper Luigi T • C 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that's a step in the right direction, though I feel this should be more of a disclaimer than a recommendation because we do not have a 'high level of consensus'. Let me be clear, I am not talking about "limiting" what editors can do. Any editor can make any edit they want, even contravening guidelines. The problem is that the category's recommendation has been taken as carte blanche for mass edits with little thought (eg: I was only following orders). I want editors to be thoughtful and responsible, not limited. I also don't like seeing guideline-creation policy being circumvented, and I feel we'd be party to that if we aren't careful here. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging people from related discussion Template talk:Infobox television#Bot needed who haven't posted here @AussieLegend: @Butlerblog: @MB: in case they haven't seen it so consensus is more complete Indagate (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gonnymn's comments as well as pertinent discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Bot needed. It's a maintenance category used by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2022 (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:Marvel Comics angels

[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make it simple and to the point: Marvel is not in the game of using Angel characters. This category has only 4 articles. And even within those... Warren Worthington III is a mutant with wings who uses "Angel" as a codename, not an Angel as we understand the idea (a servant of God sent to Earth). Zarathos is a demon and I really do not understand what is he doing in that category to begin with. Angela (character) was an Angel only while published by Image; she is an "angel" in Marvel as well but that's a thing of its own, related to Asgard (comics) and divorced from the common idea of an angel (see here for in-universe info about the "Angels of Heven"). It may still fit in the category, but reinforces my point. And that leaves just Janus (Marvel Comics), the only character Marvel Comics created as an Angel, a character from the semi-obscure The Tomb of Dracula comic from the 1970s. In short, a category with 4 articles, and they may be just 2 if we do cleanup. Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2022 (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:Characters created by James Gunn

[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. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 23:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: James Gunn did not create any of these characters. At best we can say that he adapted these characters, but we don't have Categories:Characters adapted by creator category system. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (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:Ethnic Armenian people by religion

[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 to Category:Ethnic Armenian people. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 23:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A second subcategory would be unneeded because all ethnic Armenians are Christians unless specified otherwise. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (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:NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing 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: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The series hasn't gone by the Mello Yello name since the early parts of October 2020. Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also could have been sent to speedy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:05, 4 April 2022 (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:Bells (instrument)

[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:Bells (percussion). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How is dis-ambiguation necessary here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well hmm. I'm looking over Bell (disambiguation) and I think most of the signal bells could also be considered musical instruments - Church bells for one example. And are we differentiating between physical bells (metal, wooden, etc) and items which electronically or artificially create a bell-like sound? And thinking about some doorbells, are chimes bells? (Chimes redirects to Tubular bells.) Maybe create Category:Bells as a container cat, and subcat as appropriate? I dunno. Maybe not. Trying to think of a better general use disambiguator than "instrument". If we said Bells (percussion), would we now be adding xylophones and such? - jc37 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:53, 28 March 2022 (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:Lists of pilots

[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aviators are pilots, so why is the latter a subcategory of the former? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. All pilots are aviators yes, but not all aviators are pilots. Aviators includes navigators and flight engineers as well, and they outnumber those who are just pilots. That said, I see no real need to have both categories - and aviators is the broader category, so it should be retained while the pilots category should have its contents moved to aviators. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the dictionaries I've checked say aviators are pilots. Do you have any sources that say otherwise? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All pilots are aviators, but not all aviators are pilots. What is so hard to comprehend about the distinction? We have two words for a reason. One means they are in control (pilot), the other means they spend time in airplanes doing something related to the aircraft flying (aviator) but might also be in control, especially for earlier use of the word.
Pilots could be redirected into aviators as the latter is broader but isn't necessarily the obvious category. Cambridge Aerospace dictionary defines aviator as "Operator of an aerodyne, esp. pilot. As term archaic, difficult to define; nearest modern equivalent is aircrew member." Why? Because some notable aviators were not pilots. The term also has problems with it being gendered, and if it wasn't the broader of the two definitions it would have been better to use pilot, however pilot specifically excludes observers, navigators, radio operators, bomb aimers, gunners, flight engineers, load masters and others who don't hold pilots certificates but who are aviators, and there are more than enough of them who were notable for them to have their own category. Indeed, I am beginning to think that those aviators who were pilots should go in the pilot category, and those who were not should go in the aviator category, with BOTH categories remaining, and with the pilot category as a subcategory of aviator. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:25, 28 March 2022 (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/2022_March_28&oldid=1089597906"