Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 23

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. Timrollpickering 10:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian antihero films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Propose deleting Category:Indian female antihero films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Several previous CdDs have formed a consensus against antihero categories in general, which would extend to daughter categories such as this one. As an aside, there's been a lot of good-faith splitting of Indian categories - films and occupations in particular - which could do eyeballs from someone familiar with CfD consensus on these kinds of things. Le Deluge (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a well definined enough genre to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2017 (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.

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. Timrollpickering 10:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Planetary systems with eight confirmed planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A trivial and useless category. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Is this for our solar system? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is part of the supercategory Category:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets. In this case, WP:ARBITRARYCAT does not apply, as also exist categories Category:Planetary systems with one confirmed planet, up to Category:Planetary systems with seven confirmed planets. It could be argumented that WP:SMALLCAT may apply, as so far only one planetary system with eight planets is known (the Solar System). However, it is explicitly stated that WP:SMALLCAT is used «unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme» (in this case, the sub-categorization scheme is the planetary system by number of planets). Additionally, WP:SMALLCAT states explicitly that small categories are acceptable when «a category which does have realistic potential for growth». In this case, a category as the one under discussion has a real potential for growth: last 22nd February, NASA announced the third planetary system with seven planets discovered. With no doubt, in few months (at most one or two years) probably more planetary systems with eight planets will be discovered (in fact, HD 10180 might be soon the first confirmed planetary system with nine planets, as it has currently seven confirmed, and two candidates under research). As a Wikipedia editor, I strongly agree to remove nonsensical categories, but this is not the case, it makes quite a lot sense when you know the context of the explosion in planetary discovery we are living in the last years. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with nom that the number of confirmed planets is a pretty trivial characteristic. Sibling categories should be deleted for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2017 (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.

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: Option 2 - Organisations. Timrollpickering 10:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Rationale: Since these categories have the same national scope, they should be named consistantly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 – follow the head category Category:Organisations based in Brazil. Been there since 2006. Oculi (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as a point of reference, the government of Brazil's English-language website doesn't seem to have an obvious preference for one or the other spelling (organization gets 35 hits, whilst organisation gets 32; many of both are used in proper nouns and/or citations from other sources and may not indicate a preference but merely repetition of some original spelling). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 As there seems to be no obvious preference in Brazil, a non-English speaking nation, it makes sense to follow the original tree, started at Category:Organisations based in Brazil in a similar way as we would per WP:RETAIN. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2017 (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.

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_20#Category:May_Coup_(Poland). – Fayenatic London 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:May Coup (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the eponymous article and a subcat. The article is displayed as the main article in the header of the subcat so all of it is completely interlinked already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It is parent to the better populated Category:People of the May Coup (Poland). But it's not like pl:Kategoria:Przewrót majowy 1926 offer much hope for it being more populated in the future. Where would we upmerge the people of cat if it was deleted though? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The people stay in Category:People of the Second Polish Republic, that's perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (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.

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 27 for discussion on the second merge target. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Boston Patriots (AFL) players to Category:Boston Patriots players
• Propose merging Category:Buffalo Bills (AFL) players to Category:Buffalo Bills players
• Propose merging Category:Cincinnati Bengals (AFL) players to Category:Cincinnati Bengals players
• Propose merging Category:Kansas City Chiefs (AFL) players to Category:Kansas City Chiefs players
• Propose merging Category:Houston Oilers (AFL) players to Category:Houston Oilers players
• Propose merging Category:Miami Dolphins (AFL) players to Category:Miami Dolphins players
• Propose merging Category:New York Jets (AFL) players to Category:New York Jets players
• Propose merging Category:Oakland Raiders (AFL) players to Category:Oakland Raiders players
• Propose merging Category:San Diego Chargers (AFL) players to Category:San Diego Chargers players

Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to keep the AFL stuff separate. These players are as much a part of the history of the NFL teams as more modern players. Also see discussion here. Notable things we aren't discussing here include merging categories associated with the same team before and after a name change and the Los Angeles Chargers business, which is going to be a mess because the name was used twice with a great amount of history between the usages. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the mergers per the nominator's rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps Category:Dallas Texans (AFL) players and Category:New York Titans (AFL) players should be kept at their current titles because there is also Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players, Category:Dallas Texans (Arena) players, and Category:New York Titans (lacrosse) players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the two renames from this discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a similar vein, there's also Category:Buffalo Bills (AAFC) players, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ejgreen77: Yes, but the NFL team is clearly the primary topic there and Category:Buffalo Bills players already exists. If the latter should be renamed, we can always consider that later, but for now a merge into the existing category makes sense. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, minus the ones mentioned by WikiOriginal-9. Lizard (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @BU Rob13: Wouldn't we then need to place every player in these categories into Category:American Football League players? Since if the AFL team cats (which are child cats of that one) are merged, AFL player pages will be left without any cats to signify that they played in the AFL. Lizard (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a good point. Yes, we should also merge there. I have no problem directly applying that category to all AFL players. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 23 March 2017 (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.

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 27 seeking clearer consensus on which way to merge. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:History of Poland (1918–39)‎ to Category:Second Polish Republic
• Propose downmerging Category:History of Poland (1945–89)‎ to Category:Polish People's Republic
• Propose downmerging Category:History of Lithuania (1940–45) to Category:Lithuania in World War II
• Propose downmerging Category:History of Lithuania (1945–90) to Category:Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic‎
• Propose downmerging Category:History of Belarus (1939–45) to Category:Belarus in World War II

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, as the scope of each of these categories completely overlaps with one of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Makes some sense, but it is worth noting that those categories have siblings that also require attention. For Poland, see Category:History of Poland (966–1385), Category:History of Poland (1385–1569), Category:History of Poland (1795–1918), Category:History of Poland (1989–present) and maybe a few others. They would best belong to Category:History of Poland by period, I think. Anyway, we have to consider that history of a country =/= former political entity. History of Poland (1918–39) =/= Second Polish Republic. In fact, a former political entity is only a part of history of a country for a given region. I am not sure ifthe merge should be in the proposed direction, or reversed. And the overlap is there only if we assume that a category for the former political entity should include topics that are not directly related to it. Are Category:Polish football in the interwar period‎ really a part of the Second Polish Republic, or better in the history of Poland in the Interwar Period category? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that Category:History of Poland (966–1385) and Category:History of Poland (1385–1569) may well be renamed to align with their main article, Category:History of Poland (1989–present) may be renamed to Contemporary history of Poland per WP:C2C, but let's leave all of that for a next nomination. Fact is that we categorize by polity, and any period category that we define based on the period of a polity will obviously strongly overlap with the polity category itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: I agree in principle, but I do not believe that "Fact is that we categorize by polity" is true. Look at Category:History of the United States by period: I see a lot of categories looking like Category:History of the United States (1980–91)‎ (which pretty much overlaps with Category:1980s in the United States...). Granted, USA has pretty much one polity, barring some Colonial era footnote-stuff, so it needs child categories, but here you go. We could of course say that it is polity on the top level, and date ranges as child categories (through we not just use the centuries and decades/years in a Foo country then), but while again, it sounds like a sound principle, is it indeed written down anywhere? Looking at UK history, I also see no division by polity, just stuff like modern/medieval and eras, then going into decades. Category:Late Modern France seems to match the polity division, barring some minor eras, etc. So does Category:Modern history of Germany. As you will note, I am not objecting - much - but it would be good to write down this rule/logic somewhere, then proceed on standardizing as much as we can. Last thing to note: long ago when I was active in writing history of Poland articles, I stressed strongly the need to make sure people understand the difference between a former polity article (which should be structured just like that for modern polity - with sections on economy, administration, and history) and history of said former polity/era; note in particular that for example a History of Poland (1918-1939) (or whatever it redirects to) should be a section/child for Second Polish Republic (entity which existed in 1918-1939). I thought it would be logical to apply this division to categories, too, alas I see your point that in the category the overlap is much bigger. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge one way or the other. These two categories cover the same thing. I have no opinion on which form is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2017 (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.