Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 28

December 28

Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks

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. MER-C 03:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Subjective category, can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a running threat. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story of American football, i.e. The National Football League is one built on evolution. There was a time when the forward pass was not even a part of the game; today it is the cornerstone of every NFL offense. The old term "end" now refers to either a tight end(Category:American football tight ends) or wide receiver(Category:American football wide receivers). Defensive linemen are now defensive tackles or defensive ends, linebackers are middle(Category:American football middle linebackers) or outside linebackers(Category:American football outside linebackers), each with a Wikipedia category of their own. The evolution has continued with more NFL teams looking for that quarterback who is a threat to pass or run. Even college football programs are looking at high school players as to whether or not they can pose a dual-threat to opposing defenses. Rivals.com, one of the most prominent sites that rate high school athletes has a separate category for the dual threat quarterback. While I agree with User:Eagles247 that the term dual-threat quarterback can be subjective, I strongly disagree that one can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a dual threat. Read the article "Dual-threat quarterback" and you'll find fewer than two dozen quarterbacks mentioned; and those that are considered dual-threats are supported by objective data (rushing yards, touchdowns, passer ratings etc.) that support the designation. An internet search of the term "dual-threat quarterback" turns up dozens of articles from pro football related cites showing the growing trend in American football of interest in and the evolution towards the dual threat quarterback. Therefore providing a separate category for the dual threat quarterback will enable users to browse sets of related sports pages and probably long overdue. «Marylandstater» ^«^reply^» 06:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Tom Brady led the Patriots in rushing for a game in 2015. Does that make him a dual-threat QB? Categories are not meant to be subjective, and there is no clear definition of a "dual-threat quarterback". Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol! I don't think anyone would ever accuse Tom Brady of being a dual-threat quarterback. But as for a clear definition check out the article: "Dual-threat quarterback". «Marylandstater» ^«^reply^» 18:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article says a dual-threat quarterback is one "who possesses the skills and physique to run with the ball if necessary". Possessing better skills than other people who play the same position is not something that can be defined in an encyclopedic setting. You admitted this category is subjective, so it fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although the idea of a dual-threat quarterback is clearly notable, the criteria for inclusion for individual players is inherently subjective and thus unsuitable for a category. Some sources may state that a player is a dual-threat QB, but even this is somewhat subjective analysis, as there is a clear difference between Aaron Rodgers (threat to scramble) and Lamar Jackson (a dedicated runner)—two examples noted in the article. An example of a more objective category would be Category:American football quarterbacks who led their team in rushing yards for a season (note how the criteria for inclusion is objective since it is based on statistical results, whereas Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks relies on a subjective statement by secondary or tertiary sources because dual-threat QB has no clear definition). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gonzo. Categories shouldn't really be created around subjective opinions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:23, 3 January 2020 (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:Bus operators in the United Kingdom

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Category:Bus operators in the United Kingdom

Category:Artificial mythology

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. MER-C 03:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Artificial mythology to Category:Mythopoeia

Nominator's rationale: Artificial mythology redirects to Mythopoeia and these seem to be the same or WP:OVERLAPCAT at least. Brandmeister^talk 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Same meanng. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 31 December 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.

Category:Theravada Buddhist texts

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Category:Theravada Buddhist texts

Category:Maps by source

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. MER-C 03:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Maps by source to Category:Maps

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful intermediate category. Only real content is OpenStreetMap‎. Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 29 December 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.

Category:Former cities in the Philippines

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. (non-admin closure) hueman1 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former cities in the Philippines to Category:Former cities of the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other subcategories under Category:Former subdivisions of the Philippines. hueman1 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the proposal would create inconsistency with sibling categories containing cities in countries, in the tree of Category:Former cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see. If that's the case here, then I should close this discussion right away. Thanks by the way. —hueman1 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 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.

Category:Cloud infrastructure attacks & failures

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. MER-C 03:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cloud infrastructure attacks & failures to Category:Cloud computing issues

Nominator's rationale: If the main article is Cloud computing issues, then this seems to be the name, but other suggestions could be as well. Brandmeister^talk 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disperse among Category:Internet security and Category:Cyberwarfare, this category does not add any value to the existing categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.

Category:Transgender non-binary 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: keep. MER-C 03:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Transgender non-binary people to Category:People with non-binary gender identities

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be any difference between these two categories. Vaporgaze (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue. Intersex people can also be non-binary but are not Transgender, therefore Category:Transgender non-binary people and Category:Intersex non-binary people are child categories of Category:People with non-binary gender identities.★Trekker (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming per User:*Treker. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question, many articles in the nominated category only mention non-binary but not transgender, should these articles be moved manually? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- People who are not intersex but binary are by definition transgender. They identify with a gender which they were not assigned with or their body does not automatically reflect.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - They might also identify as agender or genderfluid rather than as transgender. Though it is not clear if that applies to any of the biographies in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - While it is technically possible for someone to identify as non-binary but specifically not transgender those people seem to make up a small minority and I tried to make sure when adding that I could find reference to them being part of the trans community, (there are a few people left in the main category whom I could not be sure about).★Trekker (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok thanks, that answers my question. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.

Category:Fisheries

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: split selectively to Category:Fishing. MER-C 03:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Fisheries to Category:Fisheries and Category:Fishery

Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category are currently a mixture of individual fisheries (set category) and fishery-related concepts (topic category). The topic category part should be split into Category:Fishery, and Category:Fisheries should only contain entities of named fisheries. I'm not sure, though, what the difference would be between Category:Fishery and Category:Fishing, so an alternative suggestion would be to selectively upmerge the topic content to Category:Fishing. Paul_012 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split The present category is a mess covering Category:fishery-related topics and Category:individual fisheries and perhaps other topics. I would prefer to leave the outcome for the present category for the moment. If a consensus emerges along those lines, encourage the nom (after a week hence) to empty the category manually into appropriate new categories. The rest of us can then judge what is left. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fishing per nom. Individual fisheries can instead be moved to Category:Fishing companies, but there aren't that many. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.

Category:Jewish engravers by nationality

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Category:Jewish engravers by nationality

Category:Planned Economies

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. MER-C 03:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Planned Economies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only has two members, North Korea and Soviet Union, and the Planned economy article says that there is dispute whether the Soviet economy was planned or command. If kept it will need a C2A rename to Category:Planned economies. Le Deluge (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So add the missing countries - most of the WarPacs, for starters. Also, why is a command economy not also a planned economy? (it's a subset, not disjoint). The lead article is pretty poor, with much of it unsourced and a bias to it overall that's very American (an inability to tell socialism from communism, for one). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it should only contain articles about the economy of countries that never had a non-communist regime. For example Economy of Poland does not qualify for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what about countries which did have a centrally planned economy for decades? We might well split such a country's economic history across two articles (and Poland would be a good example), but if the article is covering that planned period, it should be categorised as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against splitting the article, but if it is not split then Economy of Poland really does not belong here because the article is almost exclusively about the current economy. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep and populate - Command economies is a redirect to the main article here, but there should be scope for adding articles on the economy of Cuba and of Walsall Pact countries until 1989. Category:Command economies might be a better name, but this would require the main article to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.

Category:Bridges over the Kharkiv River

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. MER-C 03:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bridges over the Kharkiv River to Category:Kharkiv River

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in it. There is no need for a dual merge, the article is already in Category:Bridges in Kharkiv. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.

Category:Actors from Dedham, Massachusetts

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Category:Actors from Dedham, Massachusetts