Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 15 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_15

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of video games that include the use of a grapple hook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature of any game, it's pure WP:GAMECRUFT ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even a bigger problem is that this is a category, not a category of lists. It might (but probably would not) work as an actual list, but fails as a category. They probably didn't try a list because there is a total lack of reliable sourcing that discusses these as a group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 22 September 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. Renaming the other category is a subject for a future discussion. MER-C 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewelry retailers of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There was one article, but better in Category:Jewellery companies of Japan, as the company produced as well as sold. Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:C1. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since Japan is more likely to use US English spelling, perhaps a name change of the merge target to Category:Jewelry companies of Japan is worth considering? Grutness...wha? 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• We've managed to confine the American spelling to the American category. Cant we keep it like that? Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough - IMO it's pretty ugly. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewellery retailers of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There was one article, but better in Category:Jewellery companies of Turkey. Not just a retailer. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:C1. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 16 September 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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Container Crane manufacturers to Category:Crane manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Few companies specialise in container cranes. If not merged as proposed should be renamed to correct the capitalisation. DexDor ^(talk) 18:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not enough articles to subdivide.Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 15 September 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: dual upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mayors of Killeen, Texas to Category:People from Killeen, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Also merge to Mayors of places in Texas

Category with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• dual merge as nom: the usual outcome in such cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge with no prejudice against recreation if we get enough contents. With over 100,000 people this might happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 22 September 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: speedily deleted already under WP:G5. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Belarusian music chart "LF Top Songs" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Promotional category obviously created by a sockpuppet of banned user Alex9777777. They have previously created essentially the same page, most recently (that I know of) as Category:Music "LF Top Songs ♪", but also in several other versions as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not related to Alex9777777, please do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles there is , then let it be and https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Belarusian_music_chart_%22LF_Top_Songs%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The world is equal for everyone, the category has the right to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The chart has official pages -> https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x

Please respect the work of other people and do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I think we have regularly deleted record chart categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining especially for articles (e.g. 365 (song)) that don't mention Belarus. DexDor ^(talk) 19:45, 15 September 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: merge to parents. MER-C 16:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mayors of Caribou, Maine to Category:People from Caribou, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Also Category:Mayors of places in Maine. Small category with only 3 articles. TM 15:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge It appears in Caribou the "mayor" is actually the head of the council with additional honorific duties. The term is 1 year at a time. 2 of these people were state senators (one succeeded the other) and the third is notable as a prominent person in state-wide civic action, not really for her short time as mayor. Just to make things more fun that 3rd person was the wife of another one of the mayors we have an article on. With this merger we will have 15 articles in the people from Caribou, Maine category. There is no good reason to split in any way a people from category that is that small.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 22 September 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: split/merge. MER-C 16:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Architectural styles to Category:Architectural styles and Category:Architecture by style
• Propose renaming Category:Architectural styles by style by country to Category:Architecture by style and country
• Propose renaming Category:Architecture styles by country to Category:Architecture by country and style

Nominator's rationale: the proposed outcome will result in the latter two categories having clearer names that are reciprocal, and are consistent with other Wikipedia categories analysed by two criteria. The first one Category:Architectural styles will hold articles on styles and sundry sub-categories, and a new Category:Architecture by style to hold the main sub-categories by style such as Category:Art Deco architecture. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the second rename is simply a matter of improved grammar, the first rename splits the category in two clearly distinct categories (one consisting of styles, the other by style). The third rename could be a bit more debatable because many subcats contain "period" instead of "style". However the current name of the nominated category does not contain "period" either, so the proposal is an improvement anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to the last point: if those country categories (e.g. Category:Albanian architecture by period) contained categories for date ranges (e.g. medieval/ Ottoman/ centuries), they should be moved to Category:Architecture by country and period, but they are generally mis-named because they actually contain categories by style. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative and provisional Support, but who is going to do the considerable amount of work needed to split Category:Architectural styles properly. All too often sweeping movements are approved here without considering this, resulting in a worse mess than in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to implement my nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 21 September 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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Healthcare reform by country to Category:Healthcare reform

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. Only one sub category Rathfelder (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, agreed. I can't find any scope to expand this. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 16 September 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: merge. MER-C 16:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Climate change science to Category:Climatology

Nominator's rationale: Climatology defined as Climate science. Looked at articles to see if Climate change science was more economics side of climate change science but found no hint of that (except perhaps sub category Category:Climate change conferences‎ which may need moving to be a sub category of something more like Category:Climate_change_policy or Category:Climate_change_policy. Anyway categories are too similar, and I think they should be merged. crandles (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, climate change is a theme in climatology. But as for implementation, the articles should be dispersed between Category:Climate change and Category:Climatology, since not all articles about science. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to do that appropriately. crandles (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While this is being discussed, Climate change science is a sub category of Climate which is a sub category of Climatology. Should Climatology be a sub category of Climate rather than other way around? I wouldn't know how to make such a change, nor would I be sure of appropriate reasons to make/change it one way or the other. crandles (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that climatology should be a subcategory of climate. Climatology is (just) the study of climate, while climate is the broader topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I do not oppose a merge but I also would not oppose the recreation of this category if anyone developed it better. Currently "climate change science" is a smaller category containing more technical articles and "climatology" is the larger category which seems to contain some but not all of the science, and also many political, data, or list-oriented articles. Category:Climate change skepticism and denial is not a subtopic of either of these, and instead is a subtopic with these under Category:Climate change. Probably there are enough articles in the top level "climate change" to justify having a discussion to plan the structure of all subtopics, and not just considering this one category independently. Still, if there is only interest in looking at this one category now, then it could be merged, but I would not want a present merge to be a barrier to any future dividing into subcategories by replicating this category or introducing any new scheme. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome such a discussion. If you have any comments to start that discussion, perhaps that could be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Categories or on the talk talk. crandles (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the impression that the concerns of User:Bluerasberry can simply be solved by critically reviewing the current content of Category:Climatology. These concerns are unrelated to the proposed merger however. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: You are correct, that does seem like a more focused alternative to this category.

• Merge We have similar existing category options. If anyone wants a new category structure, outline the differences and how each should be used at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Climate science does not really study static climate, all they study pretty much has to do with climate history, which is all about climate change. Place Clichy (talk) 07:31, 19 September 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. MER-C 16:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Convoys (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific in-universe category more in-line with Wikia's needs. All articles are categorized elsewhere. TTN (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. There is no need for upmerging to the parent category since all articles are already in a sibling category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 21 September 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: merge. MER-C 09:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spy Changers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific category. All articles are already present in other series-related categories. TTN (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to parent Category:Go-Bots, as user:TTN has not explained why the contents no longer belong in that category. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plain deletion per Fayenatic london, neutral towards upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge While the status quo is almost as good as upmerging I believe displaying them all on one page would make navigation slightly easier. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 8 October 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: rename to Category:Medieval Muslim scientists. MER-C 09:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Scientists of medieval Islam to Category:Scientists of the Islamic Golden Age

Nominator's rationale: Clearer, better match to article space (medieval Islam redirects to Islamic Golden Age), better match to parent category Category:Islamic Golden Age (it has no "medieval Islam" parent categories). Note: if this is renamed a further CFD could propose renaming the subcategories. DexDor ^(talk) 18:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there is also Science in the medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any advantage in renaming to Category:Scientists of the medieval Islamic world instead? DexDor ^(talk) 21:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the article may be renamed to Science in medieval Islam, or Science in the Islamic Golden Age, both are redirects now. There are multiple ways to reach more consistency, none of which I would oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Medieval Islamic scientists. These are not scienctists who use science to study medival islam, which is what the current use of of implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We rather over-use the concept of the Islamic Golden Age, which doesn't have a very clearly-defined date range, making it unsuitable here. We should stick with the Science in the medieval Islamic world form. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Medieval Muslim scientists, as an intersection of Category:Medieval Muslims and Category:Medieval scientists. I agree with JPL that "of medieval Islam" is wrong and share Johnbod's concern related to "Islamic Golden Age". I also think "Medieval Islamic scientists" is not quite correct, since it implies the existence of "Islamic science". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ok with me. DexDor ^(talk) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Medieval Muslim scientists. For the other alternatives real problems have been raised leading me to believe this is the best proposed option. To aid in seeing if there's consensus for this proposal I'm pinging Johnpacklambert and Johnbod. --Trialpears (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with Category:Medieval Muslim scientists - presumably we use "Muslim" when appropriate? Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 8 October 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: rename/merge. MER-C 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia Hebrew templates to Category:Wikipedia Hebrew script templates
  • Category:Devanagari script help pages to Category:Wikipedia Devanagari script templates

Nominator's rationale: The current names are inconsistent, poorly phrased, and/or misleading (the pages in the Devangari category are templates, not help pages). The Wikipedia {Foo} script templates naming convention is advantageous in that it clearly identifies each category as containing project maintenance templates related to a particular writing system. (Note: I am not including the subcategories, which also need to be renamed, until the broader question of naming conventions is decided. Pining the category creators, User:Gilgamesh~enwiki and User:Mahitgar.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the Hebrew category as nominated. Upmerge the Devanagari category to Category:Wikipedia multilingual support as it only contains one template (there was previously also an old user draft for the same template, which I have now blanked). – Fayenatic London 18:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That works, too – I am fine with upmerging the Devanagari category. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:15, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nansen Refugee Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, and there is already a list included in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Not yet another AWARD category. I get fed up with deleting them: lists do the job much better and prevent category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 15 September 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.