Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 30

September 30

Category:Princes of Dannenberg

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it's not meaningful to keep a category for one prince. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (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:Arrow characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All characters in this cat are comic book characters that appear on Arrow (sans one). The actors and characters are already listified at List of Arrow characters plus List of Arrowverse actors. See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for a similar cat that has been deleted multiple times for the same reason, and these discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17#Category:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._characters. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (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:Arrowverse characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All characters in this cat are comic book characters that appear on various shows in the Arrowverse. The actors and characters are already listified at List of Arrowverse actors. See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for a similar cat that has been deleted multiple times for the same reason, and these discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17#Category:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._characters. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; at least this doesn't suffer from the ambiguity of the other one, but small graces doesn't save it from uselessness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted. If this is in fact duplicating Category:Arrow characters, one should be deleted now, as a duplicate Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (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:Male Singers by Nationality

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 merge to pre-existing and well-populated Category:Male singers by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I declined speedy deletion on this category. But given that it is populated with a sub category related to Pakistani male singers, it appears to be of limited utility. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2015 (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:17th century in the Netherlands

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. — ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, similar merge as for 18th century in the Netherlands which was discussed earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (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:Main topic classifications

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criteria fgnievinski (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2015 (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:Four species

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 on deletion, therefore rename. There is no Jewish ritual called "Four Species", therefore rename to Category:Four species (Sukkot) which matches parent category:Sukkot. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not needed. Four Species is an item, the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page. Yossiea (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but rename clearly That's not how categories work! That "the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page" is no reason to delete, given there are a deal more than 4 articles in the category - currently 9. Please list for Jewish-related deletions. Should be renamed something like Category:Four species (Jewish ritual). Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that certain species are integral to one religious rite is not what makes the species notable. Thus, trivial. Not unlike creating a category Category:Bell, Book and Candle from the notable movie and including bell, book, and candle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Sukkot As far as I can tell the only thing the category is doing is setting out someone's opinion of which varieties of citron are suitable for use as the etrog of the feast. Indeed, the category is somewhat misleading because one needs to read the article to understand how the Torah passage is interpreted to mean these specific four plant parts. Some of these entries (but not, I think, the various citron variety articles) need to be in the Sukkot category, but I'm dubious about it as a separate category. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per Johnbod. Their relation to Jewish ritual makes this a valid category, but it needs better description to make it clear that they are not a random selection. my reaction (before I looked) was trhat it was going to be about the four living creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. Though I think that Category:Four species (Sukkot), *might* be clearer.Naraht (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per reason given by Johnbod. The name is too ambiguous. Although Category:Four species (Sukkot) would be just as clear and probably better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being one of the four species used by a small sub-group of Jews is not defining to Citron. This is all the more clear since the article also mentions that in China Citron is widely used in offerings to the Buddha, but no corresponding category for Category:Plants commonly used in Buddhist ritual exists. Not every detail that will appear in an article needs to be categorized by, only those that are defining, and this is not defining to the plants involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. A non-defining characteristic and gateway to a possibly horrendous precedent. — ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos and Explicit. I agree that this is non-defining for those species that are so categorized. The point about their use in Sukkot can easily be made in the relevant article text. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. CN1 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (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:Food grains

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested at CFDS. Following an RM decision to make this the primary topic again, the category should be moved back to where it was pre-2014. The target title redirects here anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@RGloucester, Srnec, Steel1943, Thewellman, and Three-quarter-ten: Just found out template only supports 7 names, the rest of the originally intended editors are now added. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support category:Grains per WP:PRIMARY and Good Olfactory. Plural form is not ambiguous, etymology shows history of word used to describe seeds and from that other small particles generally, and though other definitions follow in short order, use to describe food grains being the most common. This is what dab pages are for, grain of salt, grain of sand, wood grain, etc. Also "factor of least surprise" is at work here, google hits has food-related pages primary for quite a while, occasional wood grain references pop up. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Keep consistent with the article. While there are some specialized uses, food grains are by far the most common. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to maintain consistency. North America1000 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support grains -- I suppose that a grain of sand, but I doubt we will ever need a category to include them. Perhaps that objection can be dealt with by having a headnote defining the category as relating to food grains and placing an "otheruses" dablink on the page (yes I know that leads to articles, not categories). And populate -- I did not see wheat, oats, barley, rice, millet or maize in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (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:Old Saxon language

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Old Saxon. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • rename per nom The language was moved five years ago; the category never caught up. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, also I do not precisely understand the objection as mentioned in the CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The choice between using singular form and plural form is purely a stylistic choice in the case of the people category, an Old Saxon or the Old Saxons. The category itself relies solely on Wikipedia convention two distinguish between the two. That isn't a real world distinction, since a person and the language can both be called "Old Saxon", thus making the category for the language highly ambiguous with one for persons that are Old Saxons. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you create a bot to automatically move non-language articles into the ethic category, you run into the situation where a modern Old Saxon speaker appears vs an ethnic Old Saxon one would categorize in one, the other in the other. But that bot will then mistransfer such biographies to the wrong category. So it is better to establish that one is for people and the other is for language. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If 70.51.202.113 feels the article hatnote is valuable, no objection to recreating it on the category. I don't see how having different name for the main article and category would aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. The convention is to put people in the plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2015 (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:Superlatives in sports

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:Perfect scores in sports. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME
This is a worthwhile category that groups together the best possible scores in different sports: Nine finish in Darts, Eight-ender in Curling, Golden set in Tennis, etc. The current name and parent category don't work because, grammatically, most of these are not actually superlatives. This nomination just seeks to get the category to better describe the actual contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Nickst as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Sports. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2015 (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:Algae genera

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is ungrammatical, since algae is plural. It is like saying "plants genera" or "animals genera". All corresponding categories use the singular in the name, such as Category:Plant genera and Category:Fungus genera. EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2015 (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/2015_September_30&oldid=1090392149"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 30, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.