Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 22

October 22

Category:LEGO DC Comics Movies

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. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring name in line with other film categories, correct capitalization of "Lego". Trivialist (talk) 21:53, 22 October 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.

Category:Musical quintets

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. I see three groups of approximately equal membership advocating for keeping, deletion, or modification in some other way. I am unable to find consensus to to anything at this time, so the status quo will remain. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the on-going project to deal with the various "groups by size" categories, we've finally reached a case where there are significant groups organized to play music written for a five member ensemble of specified instruments. With the exception of the string quintet, of which we have only one example (the Boccherini Quintet), these are all in subcats. Evrything else is, yes, a five member band, or at least a band which had five members at some point in its history. And as for the larger numbers, this isn't defining. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: trivial category. This categorization isn't helpful. If we are going to categorize bands based on the number of members, why not "bands with two men and three women" or "bands with an odd number of members"? Bands containing five members have important in common with one another (with the possible exception of string quintets, which is a more specific category). Yes (band) is a good example: It is tagged as a "musical quintet", which is 99% correct (Yes had five members over most of its history, with brief exceptions) -- but tells us nothing interesting about the band. If you were to list the bands most similar to Yes, they would have various numbers of members. Deep Purple (five members) is much closer to Led Zeppelin (four) than it is to Yes (five). And many bands have changed their number of members without changing their sound. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was previously at CFD and kept only seven days ago. What has changed since then? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous nomination was an omnium gatherum of something like thirty categories of musical groups by number; the primary reason given for keeping by almost everyone was that it was to much to deal with at once. The decision accepted that smaller nominations might succeed. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – my reading of the recent cfd is that editors thought that each should be considered separately: that at some point the number in a band becomes irrelevant. IMO quartets should be kept and octets deleted. I note that Category:Musical quintets has 3 subcats which appear to be entirely valid, whereas Category:Musical sextets (and larger) have no subcats. So I would keep 5 or fewer (possibly as container categories) and delete the rest. Oculi (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The possibility of a container cat did occur to me, but it seems to me that it would be an attractive nuisance which would eventually fill up with bands again. Perhaps you could suggest a rename. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is considered defining enough to be mentioned in reliable sources that a band is a quintet, or a quartet, or a trio, etc - and also if a band changed from one format to the other. Our own articles will often mention in the opening statement the style and size of a band (do a Wikipedia search for "five piece band" for example). And while different styles of music are played across different sizes of band, the sound that a trio makes tends to be different to the sound a quintet makes due to the increased instrumentation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise and purge of all articles that do not fit into the existing subcategories or any new ones that may be suggested. Except in classical music where the group is playing pieces written for a specific combination, the number of players is largely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of players is considered important, and often defining, in pop and rock music. See Power trio and Musical_ensemble#Rock_and_pop_bands for some indication of the relevance of the number of players. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The two problems I'm seeing are that already mentioned (the variability in numbers) and that it is common for the various small-number groups to be backed up by session musicians, so that the number stated isn't the real number of musicians. And when you read the article on ensembles you will find that the power trio and the three most common variants on quartets are the only really standard configurations; after that the article more or less admits that there is little or no pattern. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I agree people can have personal opinions on the importance of the number of people in a rock group; nevertheless, the number of people is mentioned in reliable sources, so it is seen as significant enough by enough people for a cat to be useful, even if only to create lists like these: [1], [2]. Though numbers higher than five are mentioned, it is not with any frequency, but numbers one, two, three, four, and five are common enough to be useful cats. Agreed that bands can fluctuate in their numbers, as they can fluctuate in the nationality of their members, so bands like Fleetwood Mac are always going to be a problem. But we don't decide to do away with nationality cats such as American blues rock musical groups and British blues rock musical groups because some groups straddle both cats. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are a number of performing groups, classical and others, with "Quintet" as part of their name, so it can't be regarded as trivial or non-defining. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you will re-read the nomination, this was addressed. Wind quintets et al. live in their own categories currently beneath this. What's left for this cat are pop groups where the number of member is not, as a rule, defining or even constant. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from CfD 2017 Oct 6. It may be helpful to notify WikiProject Music and/or other relevant WikiProjects, if no one has done so already.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stand by previous vote -- If there are other varieties of music where being a quintet is defining, they can be moved to new subcatogories, but in many cases the number of players will not be particularly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize, I looked into a dozen random articles and in none of these articles the editors had made an attempt to prominently display that it is about a quintet or about a 5-people band. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the number of members of a musical group is not defining, and for some groups changes throughout the group history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Classical music quintets or similar (word order?) and throw out all bands as only for classical music ensemble size is truly defining. Why? Classical music ensembles most usually play from instrumentation-defined repertoire in an attempt to be as true as possible to the source. Instrumentation rules. Pop-rock is largely music tailored with a specific ensemble in mind and variations in size per band era, tour, or recording are common. Jazz does work with standards but improvisations rule. gidonb (talk) 01:32, 21 November 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.

Category:Ojarumaru

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:46, 22 October 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.

Category:Toriko

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:28, 22 October 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.

Category:Sket Dance

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked to the main article, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 22 October 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.

Category:The Disastrous Life of Saiki K.

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 22 October 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.

Category:Beelzebub (manga)

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only five articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:24, 22 October 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.

Category:World Trigger

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:23, 22 October 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.

Category:Saint Lawrence

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that's a bizarre conflation of two WP:OCAT violations at once: mostly it's an inappropriate WP:SHAREDNAME category for things that happen to be named after St. Lawrence, although there are also a few inappropriate WP:OCASSOC entries for things that just have a vague and non-defining association with St. Lawrence (e.g. the chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper, on the basis that Lawrence is claimed to have later had it in his possession for a short spell.) Neither of these are even valid bases for a category on their own, let alone smooshed into one catchall category that's trying to do both things simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 22 October 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.

Category:Batiscanie

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE category for every lake or river, and some isolated bits of weirdness like historic geopolitical entities and an article about tourism, that happen to be located within one particular watershed. This is not a useful basis on which to categorize rivers or lakes, and it's doubly not a useful basis on which to categorize past or present town or city governments — Batiscanie is not and never has been a political entity, so it's not a valid or WP:DEFINING basis for categorizing things within it. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 22 October 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.

Category:States and territories by year of establishment

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, unneeded category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The top categories use
  • "time" instead of "date": Category:Establishments by time, Category:Disestablishments by time
  • "administrative territorial entities" instead of "states and territories": Category:Administrative territorial entities. The term "states and territories" is problematic
    • as for the USA, Australia, India, Mexico these are terms for high-level country subdivisions, see e.g. States and territories of Australia. But the category contains all kinds of administrative territorial entities.
    • Also, in the "by language"-tree (Category:Administrative territorial entities by language) the term "countries and territories" is used, which is problematic as well, since it somehow restricts it to sovereign states and special territories that sometimes are treated like countries (Macao, Hong Kong, British Overseas Territories, Puerto Rico etc.).
So one could have
  1. Category:Administrative territorial entities by continent
  2. Category:Administrative territorial entities by language
  3. Category:Administrative territorial entities by time
    1. Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment / inside Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities
    2. Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of disestablishment / inside Category:Disestablishment of administrative territorial entities
78.55.239.138 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 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.

Category:Music in Christian worship

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, as WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, the scope of the two categories is largely overlapping and Church music seems to be a better name, per article Church music. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 10#Category:Music in Christian worship.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 22 October 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.

Category:Templatonian football clubs

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) 06:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this category is supposed to contain, but the majority of category pages are user pages so it is my belief that this was intended to be some sort of user category. If so, Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. If it isn't a user category than it should still almost certainly be deleted as not useful for the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 22 October 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.

Category:Tsundere Wikipedians

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) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Tsundere is a Japanese term for a character development process that describes a person who is initially cold and even hostile towards another person before gradually showing a warmer side over time." This is not a useful feature to categorize users by. If users wish to convey this information, they can do it on their userpage; there is no need for a grouping of such users by way of a category. VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 22 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_22&oldid=1077607499"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 22, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.