Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 21

< April 20 April 22 >

April 21

Category:Men whistleblowers

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 and delete. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Men whistleblowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Women whistleblowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These are grammatically incorrect, and both categories are small enough that there's no real reason the articles can't just be in Category:Whistleblowers. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 21 April 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:Victorian-era submarines of the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Category:Victorian-era submarines of the United States

Category:Vetus Latina

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. – Fayenatic London 06:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in every of these category layers. On the other hand obviously keep the subCategory:Old Latin New Testament manuscripts. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the second nomination: there already is a Category for Category:Septuagint manuscripts and Category:Vulgate manuscripts. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For both nominations: they are not WP:SMALLCAT, as there is potential for them to grow. For the first one, I have added two pages to it, so it can definetly be expanded, I simply cannot explore the whole WP, but WP is a community project so I believe others will add this category to the pages which need it. For the second one, see here to see that there is still many manuscripts of the VL which are not on WP. Veverve (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No conceptual objection to these categories but there aren't article to justify them so they don't aid navigation.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Vetus Latina" refers to Biblical and liturgical texts in Latin originating before the Vulgate. This is specific enough to warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 25 April 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:Aydın Central District

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. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aydın Central District, which seems to have somehow had two different categories before, has been renamed Efeler District. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 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:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

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. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between these categories is unclear. Popular culture is the parent and seems to be the standard naming, see Category:Topics in popular culture. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the only (other) cultural depictions category I could find is Category:Cultural depictions of people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pure speciesism. If it's good enough for you shaved apes, it's good enough for us dinos. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 23:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a matter of "good enough", rather a matter of sheer quantity. We have many more articles about humans than about dinosaurs (or any other type of animals) which allows us to build a more detailed category tree for humans. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per the wording of the existing dinosaur category Category:Birds in popular culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the president set forth in previous discussion, as mentioned above. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:52, 21 April 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:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza

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. bibliomaniac15 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. There are three subcategories of Category:Works by Dinesh D'Souza, and there are four articles, all of which are in two or more of those categories. They are virtually unviewed as the four articles (plus the article on D'Souza) all cross-link anyway. If these categories are useful at all, there should only be one of them. Guy (help!) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These would remove them from the category trees on Films by scriptwriter and films by director. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - nothing unusual here. Oculi (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Established category schemes, per WP:CAT. They are useful as categories so that someone can find them by browsing the category structure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 21 April 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:Nurses from London

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Nurses from London

Category:2016 Nice attack

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. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:2016 Nice attack to Category:2016 Nice truck attack
Nominator's rationale: To match the category name with that of the main page. Love of Corey (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it was that old name when I created it maybe over four years ago. I think this would fall under speedy C2D criteria anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an eponymous category for an event without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. There are just four articles here besides the eponym itself: the street it occurred on, the perpetrator and two journalists. But the street isn't defined by one event that took place on it, as note the fact that it already had a Wikipedia article a full decade before this event had even happened at all — and it's performer by performance for the journalists, because a journalist is not defined by the stories he or she happened to cover. So the only entries that genuinely belong here are the event itself and the perpetrator, which is not enough articles to warrant a dedicated category — and both the street and the perpetrator are already mentioned and linked in the event article as it is, so deleting this category would not erase any navigational value. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per convincing argument made by Bearcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 27 April 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:Anniversary compilation albums

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. bibliomaniac15 04:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Anniversary compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems trivial. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every anniversary albums have the word "anniversary" on them SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Compilation albums are not defined by the question of whether they exist because of something's anniversary or for some other reason. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 27 April 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:Alsatian

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. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Alsatian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Two-item WP:SMALLCAT for a linguistic dialect, at an ambiguous name. "Alsatian" can mean many different things, including the language, the people of Alsace, the culture of Alsace or a breed of dogs, so it isn't an appropriate name for a category in and of itself. If a category were warranted here, it would have to be either Category:Alsatian language or Category:Alsatian dialect, without a categoryredirect from this -- but with just two articles here, I'm not seeing the need for it. That said, I can be convinced to withdraw this if people more knowledgeable about this topic than I am can find other articles to populate a renamed category with -- but even if that can happen, the category has to be renamed for clarity. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguity asking for trouble. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge -- We have two items of which one is half about German. The content is about the Category:Alsatian dialect, but there is not enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 25 April 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:Illustrators who write novels

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. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Illustrators who write novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining intersection of two only tangentially related occupations. It is entirely possible for a person to be both an illustrator and a writer, either performing both roles on their own books or performing one role on some books and the other role on others, but art and writing are not intrinsically related skills. It also brings up the question of whether the person is primarily an illustrator and then wrote novels on the side, or primarily a novelist and then did some illustration on the side, and in fact the four entries here split right down the middle on that: two, including Len Deighton, are far more notable for their writing than their illustration per se, while the other two appear to be more notable as illustrators than as writers. This simply isn't a defining intersection in its own right — and even if there were a case for categorizing people for the artist-writer combo in principle, it would still be far from clear that we would need separate categories for illustrators who also wrote novels, illustrators who also wrote poetry, illustrators who also wrote non-fiction and illustrators who also wrote short stories. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have the well-established & large Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing, & that's enough. If they only illustrated other people's writing, that's a trivial intersection. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 26 April 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:Historic electorates of New Zealand

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. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history). Paora (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sweet as. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 22 April 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:Historic Māori electorates

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. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history). Paora (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ka pai. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 22 April 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:Named alloys

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. There is already a List of named alloys. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Named alloys
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups alloy together by whether they have a common name versus a chemical name. Birmabright, Hydronalium, 5086 aluminium alloy and 5154 aluminium alloy are all under Category:Aluminium–magnesium alloys, all used in shipbuilding but only the first two are in this category. How people name compounds does not seem defining to these chemical articles. No merge is needed because the articles are all under other alloy subcats and the contents of this category are listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We recently deleted a similar category on named phosphines here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on the phosphines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I cannot see what is wrong with this. I do not think the phosphine discussion is a useful precedent, as the content there was a groups of related chemicals. Alloys are by their nature mixed materials. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: why is the fact that alloys are mixed materials a reason not to delete this category, while the category is based on the names of alloys? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 30 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_21&oldid=955759525"