Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 30

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< October 29
October 31 >

October 30

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Elon Musk

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of these articles. This category only seems to exist because there is a similar one regarding Donald Trump, who held a much more important position and makes the conspiracy theories in that category a big part of his political appeal. In contrast, this category is effectively just trivia. Note that the articles in this category only mention Musk for a sentence or two, if they even mention him at all. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice planets in fiction

edit
Nominator's rationale: Should be renamed to be a part of Category:Works set in outer space since it mostly consists of works, not articles about planets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics planets

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only two actual articles here, should also be dual merged to Category:Marvel Comics locations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Amazing Digital Circus and Category:Wikipedians by interest in a web series

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series exists, and I don't see why it would be a bad idea to have a separate category for web series, which may include web series that don't exactly count as TV shows. On the other hand, I don't think I can come up with an argument against the deletion of the TADC category that's better than "Some people might use this userbox one day", so I might be more willing to concede with regards to that one.

These categories were nominated for speedy deletion by Liz a few days ago on the grounds that they're empty. However, if I put both of them up for discussion, then by my understanding, they may no longer be eligible for speedy deletion anymore, though deletion itself remains on the table. This is the first time I've tried to open a category discussion, so I might be going about all of this the wrong way. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MrPersonHumanGuy, why would you start a week-long discussion on an empty category? It's just going to close as Delete, the same result of a CSD C1 tagging. And Category:Wikipedians by interest in a web series was just tagged for CSD C1 because all it contained was an empty category. A CFD discussion will not change this, with CSD C1, what will stop speedy deletion is for the categories to simply not be empty any longer. That doesn't require a discussion and we don't retain empty categories just because they might be needed in the future. If they are empty for a week, they are deleted. If they are needed in the future, they are simply recreated with no issues, either by an editor or by going to WP:REFUND. Easy peasey. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecumenopolises

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only contains a couple of actual articles. A bit too small to merit existence, should be multi-merged into "megastructures" and "fictional populated places" if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Smooth Network presenters

edit
Nominator's rationale: It seems this category is for presenters of the Smooth Radio stations. However the title is incorrect. Inpops (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-scientific hypothetical planets

edit
Nominator's rationale: So are we saying these planets are fake, or aren't we? If they aren't real, they would be fiction. If they might be real, they should be in the parent category. Either way, the current name is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and shouldn't remain where it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is that a fictional planet is presented in a work of ostensible fiction, and it is accepted by all that it does not really exist. These hypothetical planets are presented as if they are real, and are sometimes accepted by their audience as existing planets, despite the lack of evidence or theoretical justification. RandomCritic (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminism and transgender

edit
Nominator's rationale: The current title, comparing a noun to an adjective, reads awkwardly, and "transgender topics" is usually preferred to "transgenderism" as a noun form. During previous discussions on Category talk:Feminism and transgender to move it to Category:Feminist views on transgender topics, this alternative was supported by multiple editors, although a formal move request wasn't opened until now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in Andover, Vermont

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, makes navigation between buildings and structures in Windsor County more difficult. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilman, Illinois

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article about a small town and a train station, which is already mentioned at the main article. Both are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Druid Hills, Georgia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, a road, and a redirect to another road. All those articles are already appropriately categorised. An eponymous category is unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia:GLAM/TP participants (staff)

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is C2D for the most part. Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Clint Eastwood

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Eastwood family exists. --woodensuperman 09:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that categorize a person by anther related person (for example their spouse or parent). These articles were originally categorized with Clint Eastwood, so what you are basically saying is that we can't have these specific categories, but categorizing a person with the category for another person is alright. Inpops (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, people should not be categorised by other people per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:COPSEP. --woodensuperman 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. --woodensuperman 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Charlie Chaplin

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. The category tree Category:Wives by person is only usually used for royalty as people are not defined by their spouses, and they are notable in their own right. --woodensuperman 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is nothing that limits the category tree to royalty. Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. This has only been recently been created, no other entertainers have categories. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31#Category:Husbands_of_Elizabeth_Taylor and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_6#Category:Husbands_of_Elizabeth_Taylor. --woodensuperman 10:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales

edit
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state); unneeded and clone subcategory, except the NSW one excludes New South Wales R set, which to me is only a marginal difference. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state)

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded subcategory of Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia, and a complete carbon copy of the Category:Electric multiple units of Victoria (state). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Clinics in South Africa

edit
Nominator's rationale: I suspect this was intended as an article space list of clinics in South Africa. As a category, it doesn't make sense unless we retitle it Category:Lists of clinics in South Africa (note the plural) but such a category would presumably include no article other than List of hospitals in South Africa (and even that one is questionable as a hospital and a clinic are different things). Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PichpichIt was meant as a category since we don't have any categorising clinics in South Africa. Maybe we can rename it to Clinics in South Africa or South African clinics. Bobbyshabangu talk 02:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Then it should be Category:Clinics in South Africa but is there a need for that? Is there really a number of articles about South African clinics? There is Category:Clinics but the national subcategories all have at least three entries. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball pitching

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C; opposed at speedy a reason I didn't really understand. matches sister category Category:Batting (baseball). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this was opposed at speedy, I am relisting to give extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ivangorod

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_30&oldid=1254406061"