Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 14

December 14

Sports Team Categories

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for convenience, the discussion area is a separate section below: Discussion (sports fans)
(this listing section is huge, and there's no point in loading it into your edit box)
Propose renaming per the parent Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport:
Catagories to be corrected
Nominator's rationale: Grammar correction SportsFan007 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
Discussion (Sports Team Catagories)
add your support/oppose/comment here
  • Comment - Don't most (all?) of these qualify for speedy renames as uncontroversial? I certainly don't foresee any pushback. VegaDark (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. These are grammatical fixes, but I think that @VegaDark is wrong to suggest speedy. The closest speedy criterion is WP:C2A, but it is only for spelling or typograohical fixes; this is a grammatical fix.
@SportsFan007 note that at least two of the categories have already been renamed to used "the", and should be struck from the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 15 December 2018 (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:Far-right politics in Brazil

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 keep. Keep per WP:SNOW, and also the filer is a block-evading sockpuppet who has been removing pages from this category. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant. Only has and most likely will ever have only 2 pages, why are already included in sub-cats. 49.180.135.233 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (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:Unusual deaths

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 (Talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary and trivial classification with no clear criteria. Category includes biographies, methods of dying (Death by coconut, Water intoxication), and events (Dyatlov Pass incident, London Beer Flood, Death of Kendrick Johnson). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This category compliments the main article: List of unusual deaths which is already a very lengthy article. The criteria for this category is that it is provides a glue & quick link to articles referenced the main article . I believe that this category should only be deleted if List of unusual deaths is also deleted. Powerslide (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Define "unusual", because it seems rather arbitrary to me. In the Murder of Gregory Glen Biggs, Biggs was seriously injured by the killer's automobile, was held captive by the killer for a couple of days, and died either due to the lack of medical aid or due to starvation and dehydration. (The killer never bothered to offer him food or drink). For all the creepy details in the Black Dahlia murder, the victim is thought to have died after a beating. Most of the mutilations and other injuries were post-mortem. In the Death of Brittanie Cecil, the manner in which she was injured was unusual, but the cause of death was not: a torn vertebral artery. In the Dyatlov Pass incident, most of the casualties died of hypothermia, and the main puzzle is what caused rather extensive injuries to three of them. The report of the incident has left it unclear which of these injuries occured while they were alive and which were post-mortem ones. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. The existing list should suffice, having enough details to clarify. Brandmeistertalk 09:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some of these folks are primarily or only notable because of their deaths or more accurately, the circumstances of their deaths, but we don't have people only notable for how they died. That said, "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder therefore SUBJ and OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2018 (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:Nonviolence organizations based in Greece

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, without prejudice to a wider discussion of Category:Nonviolence organizations/Category:Peace organizations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Peace organisations category heirarchy is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a case for merging all the subcats of Category:Nonviolence organizations by country, but that is not the proposal before here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was contemplating doing just that, so I would like to know whether people think there is a useful distinction between nonviolence organisations and peace organisations and whether we should merge the whole category trees. The Greek category only has one entry, which is actually an ecology organisation, so it could be emptied. Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The non-violence, peace and ecology categories overlap to some extent, but while they are closely-related, they are distinct. In this case, Ecological Movement of Thessaloniki appears to fit in all three, but not all organisations in any one of the categories will belong in the other two.
Not all organisations working for peace endorse a philosopy of non-violence, so I'd oppose a wider merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 15 December 2018 (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:Nonviolence organizations based in Basque Country

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, without prejudice against revisiting if/when there are more articles. However, I would suggest that it may be more appropriate to make the Basque connection via a subject-matter-based category (e.g. Category:Basque conflict or a subcategory) rather than a location-based category, especially as we do not generally categorize organizations by cultural region. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which is already in Category:Nonviolence organizations based in France‎. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me disagree. Northern Basque Country is a generic geographic, cultural area and/or administrative jurisdiction. It is only loosely related, by association, to the topic addressed in Category:Nonviolence organizations based in Basque Country. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (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:Peace and reconciliation ministries

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Ministry" is ambiguous. Half the articles are religious organisations, the other half government ministries. I dont think the category can be rescued. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (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:Crimean Tatar peace activists

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 (Talk) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: one entry. We dont characterize activists by ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2018 (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:Tatar peace activists

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 (Talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry (the same as above). We dont categorise activists by ethnicity. Rathfelder (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2018 (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:Millennials

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 (Talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem like a useful category, and it's not clear what or who should be included. Marquardtika (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I had expected more articles about the topic of millennials would exist, but a category with Avocado toast is not worth keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category scope is unclear. Demographers Strauss and Howe who coined the term, defined the generation as including people born between 1982 and 2004. Other sources have redefined the date range, offering a variety of year-ranges. On a personal comment, I am rather surprised by the date ranges used in these definitions of cultural generations. Based on them, I would belong to a different cultural generation than my older brother (who is only 8 years older than me), but I would belong to the same generation with my nieces. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we shouldn't include things like Category:1990 births here, and there's really nothing else beyond just the article on Millenials (and, avocado toast, which is just bad). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 18 December 2018 (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:New Zealand first-class cricketers of South African origin

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 (Talk) 14:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:New Zealand first-class cricketers of South African origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not sure this is a WP:DEFINING attribute to anyone in the category. Playing a certain format of cricket (not Twenty20 or List A, but just first-class) in New Zealand when the person was born in another country seems like WP:OVERCAT to me Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:40, 14 December 2018 (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.

Church buildings by denomination and city

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Tiny categories, with little scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the Brisbane ones at least. As it says in WP:SMALLCAT, "with no potential for growth". For this reason alone, I don't think these should be put forward as a group as clearly the circumstances will differ from place to place. Are there really no more notable churches of that particular denomination in those cities? The situation with these categories is very different to the examples given in WP:SMALLCAT which deal with highly specific categories (and incidentally all of their examples still exist as categories). I cannot speak for all the cities on the list having not done the research, but for Brisbane, a city for which I do write articles about heritage-listed churches, there are a lot of articles that could be written. Given that it was evident that the growth potential was not considered for Brisbane, I am guessing it was not considered for any of the cities. I suggest that be done before discussing deletion. 07:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note that we usually do not delete categories forever (unless they are salted). If at some point in time Brisbane has more than a handful of churches per denomination we can simply recreate the category. I'm looking forward to see your new articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom most of these are minority denominations in these places, and, furthermore, they generally don't go in for grand buildings so there will never be many articles about their churches. If, in any of these places, that is not true they could come out of the list. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support It is time to stop arguing "potential for growth" when no where near all Church buildings are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 5 January 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.
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. I will list this at WP:CFD/W/M in case some of the content needs to be recategorized first. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only edit of the creator; no inclusion criteria, a clear invitation to conduct original research. Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no, this is not original research. this is organizing what is out there--66.213.14.116 (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2018 (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:Economic history of India (1947–90)

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is no major reason for a break in 1990. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2018 (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:Burma articles missing geocoordinate data

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently "Myanmar" is a subcategory of "Burma", for reasons that escape me. As far as I know, it is not controversial that Burma and Myanmar are the same country. There are various historical categories on Wikipedia that use "Burma", but the convention seems to be that contemporary categories use "Myanmar". Kevinsam2 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: See Talk:Myanmar for the very long history of debate on this point. Current consensus is that we should use Myanmar. Kevinsam2 (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2018 (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:Fictional future people

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Fictional future people. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Future people is not a descriptive statement. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:53, 14 December 2018 (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:Fictional particle physicists

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:52, 14 December 2018 (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:Fictional biophysicists

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:51, 14 December 2018 (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:Fictional climatologists

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Fictional climatologists to Category:Fictional earth scientists
Nominator's rationale: Both are extremely small cats, so no need to separate them JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:50, 14 December 2018 (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:Fictional characters with osteogenesis imperfecta

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 (Talk) 14:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in category, just three redirects JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:45, 14 December 2018 (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:Fictional intelligence analysts

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 (Talk) 14:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:43, 14 December 2018 (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:Paranormal genres

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Paranormal genres. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty category with just a subcat in it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:42, 14 December 2018 (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/2018_December_14&oldid=1073191591"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 14, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.