Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 24

October 24

Category:Defunct organisations

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 as modified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming as follows:

Nominator's rationale: Per parents. Oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively oppose -- it is the "z"-spelt parent that is misspelt. Nigeria is a Commonwealth country and will use British orthography. Slovenia and Sweden are in EU, where English is an official language, again British English. Furthermore organisation is itself a Swedish word. I do not oppose Japan and am neutral as to the others. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is to follow whatever the parent uses. You will observe that the use of 'z' is by no means restricted to Sweden, eg Category:Organizations based in France. You will also be aware that 'organize' is perfectly respectable in British English, cf Oxford English. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This said it must be conceded that the subcats of Category:Organizations based in Sweden and Category:Organizations based in Slovenia use s/z more or less at random. Oculi (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support As I have said in other edits, it would probably be best if the spelling was standardized to the most widely accepted variant. If done, this would lower the probability that new articles would be in conflict with the spelling used by the parent article, and as 'organizations' is the most common for the demographics of Wikpedia editors, it should be used to prevent excessive work later.SuperChris (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If SuperChris means that there should just be one spelling thoughout the categorisation system I would strongly support that. There is no good reason for using two different spellings. I don't care which we use. Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 28 October 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:False writing systems

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) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:False writing systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with only a single article Nowak Kowalski (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I created this category a while back. Maybe there used to be additional items in the category? I don't know what I had in mind at that time, but a category with one page doesn't make sense. Forbes72 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 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:Lists of American crime drama television series episodes

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of American crime drama television series episodes to Category:Lists of American crime television series episodes

Nominator's rationale: The entries in this category aren't different from the parent category. As an example: List of Breaking Bad episodes is listed in this category, but its spin-off show List of Better Call Saul episodes is listed in the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging - keep both cats, because there is a significant distinction. For example, List of Angie Tribeca episodes and List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes are in Category:Lists of American crime television series episodes, but not Category:Lists of American crime drama television series episodes, because they're American crime TV series which aren't dramas. Jim Michael (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even checked the list? Numerous articles there are drama: American Crime, Arrow, Banshee, Better Call Saul, The Blacklist, Boardwalk Empire, The Bridge, Chicago Fire, Chicago P.D. - almost every other entry on that list is drama (which is why I stopped). Now, if your intention was making a distinction between drama and non-drama (aka comedy) then a sub-category would have been needed for that and the parent would be left empty, but that isn't the case and this list is de-facto for both lists. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the first 24 entries (#, A and B) only 4 are non-drama (according to their articles): Angie Tribeca, Batman (TV series), Bored to Death and Brooklyn Nine-Nine. This is clearly a broken distinction. --Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important distinction. In addition to comedy, there are also criminal documentary/reality series, which List of Cops episodes fits into. Cat: Lists of American crime television series should contain the non-dramas, and the drama subcat - which the rest should be moved to. There aren't enough entries to justify subcats for comedies & doc/reality. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a valid distinction here, namely the difference between crime drama (too many police procedurals to count) and crime comedy (Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Batman, etc.) and crime reality (Cops, America's Most Wanted). If there are articles in the wrong category they can be moved, so the fact that the distinction in content hasn't been fully sorted yet isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the arguments of Bearcat. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 24 October 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:Vertically oriented video games

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Vertically oriented video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Video games aren't categorized by their orientation. Category:Vertically scrolling shooters and Vertically scrolling video game is a common type of video games, and most video games from this category belong somewhere over there. wumbolo ^^^ 07:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it is true that video games aren't traditionally categorized by orientation, this is an important aspect of the way that the game is experienced, and games that are vertically oriented aren't necessarily vertically scrolling. There's no reason to get rid of this either.SuperChris (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's also category:Side-scrolling video games and it's a valid categorization. If anything, Vertically scrolling video game has more titles listed. Mobile games like Doodle Jump also come to mind. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: I don't understand your vote. You only mention scrolling video games, but this discussion is about the orientation of video games. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 31 October 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:Lists of people by association

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of people by association to Category:Lists of people

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear how this category differentiates itself from its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I would move just a few members up to the parent, but most are "List of people associated/involved with Foo", making this a valid sub-cat of Category:People by association. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Category:People by association largely serves as a container category of container categories, implying that very few articles are directly in an association category. This is one of the remaining exceptions. In this case, grouping by having "associated with" in the article title is actually a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as WP:OCAT because of the shared name, but a useful way to diffuse Category:Lists of people along with about 20 siblings "Category:Lists of people by X". – Fayenatic London 07:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:SHAREDNAME applies to articles, not categories. It is a useful way to diffuse Category:Lists of people. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose There's no reason to delete this category. It serves as an important subcategory allowing for discovery of individuals based on the organization they are in. SuperChris (talk) 18:24, 27 October 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.