Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 27 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_27

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) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Articles for historical figures placed into a category about fictional interpretations of them. It seems navigationally pointless and improper categorization, and there's unlikely to ever be any articles on the fictional versions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deleting If you look at the Talk page of the Category, then you would see that concerns similar to yours have been brought up before. Characters don't have to be fictional, they can be historical figures as well. By the definition of the word "Character", the categorization is correct. Now I understand that it can probably cause some confusion for some WP users, so instead of deleting I think it should be made clear on the page that although many of the characters in Ertugrul are "based" on historical figures, they are still highly fictionalized. Or the category can be renamed to "Historical figures featured on Diriliş: Ertuğrul. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion on the talk page addresses none of the issues. Categories are supposed to help with navigation, but that is impossible in this case. These articles have nothing to do with the show. It's improper to categorize them in such a way, and there are thousands upon thousands of series that use historical/mythological characters. There would be no justification in doing that with any of those series either. TTN (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to this concern is that it is probably OK to link to the historical characters in an article about the series (except in relatively rare cases when there is a dedicated article, such as Cultural depictions of Hannibal), but adding these articles to a category about the series is wrong. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell games to Category:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell

Nominator's rationale: No need for a "games" subcategory of this video game series. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:BloodRayne games to Category:BloodRayne

Nominator's rationale: Given that it is originally a video game series, there is no need for a subcategory. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 3 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. MER-C 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Terms for males to Category:Terms for men

Nominator's rationale: Same reason as below - "males" is an awkward way of saying it, and isn't clear that it refers to humans. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Terms for ... is a rather odd category. Why not simply merge this to Category:Men? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not as well-kept as Category:Terms for females: Some contents should be moved down to Category:Slang terms for men or one of its subcategories. However, we have Metrosexual and Trans man discussed as terms, and He (pronoun) and Radical 88 should belong as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. This is the best solution to group these terms. To move the contents up to a parent category would unnecessarily clutter and confuse that category. Hmains (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom - content of these categories is specific to human (fe)males. Content is also restricted to terminology, unlike many other terms... categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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: rename. MER-C 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Terms for females to Category:Terms for women

Nominator's rationale: "Females" is an awkward way of saying it and isn't quite as clear that it's about female humans. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Terms for ... is a rather odd category. Why not simply merge this to Category:Women? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are at least 4 articles here that specifically discuss actual terms (Diva, Radical 38, She (pronoun), Trans woman) and don't belong in one of the subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. This is the best solution to group these terms. To move the contents up to a parent category would unnecessarily clutter and confuse that category. Hmains (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom - content of these categories is specific to human (fe)males. Content is also restricted to terminology, unlike many other terms... categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 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: rename. MER-C 09:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Health care. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_16#Category:Health_care where there was no agreement on standardising on the spelling Healthcare. So can we agree on uniformity this way round? NB there is no uniformity or pattern that I can detect in the use of these words in the literature. Its not uncommon for both spellings to appear in the same article.

• Category:Healthcare-related timelines to Category:Health care-related timelines – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Universal healthcare to Category:Universal health care – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Types of healthcare facilities to Category:Types of health care facilities – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare robotics to Category:Health care robotics – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare reform to Category:Health care reform – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare quality to Category:Health care quality – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare software to Category:Health care software – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare occupations to Category:Health care occupations – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Businesspeople in the healthcare industry to Category:Businesspeople in the health care industry – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare and the LGBT community to Category:Health care and the LGBT community – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare management to Category:Health care management – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare industry in the United States to Category:Health care industry in the United States – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare industry to Category:Health care industry – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare by country to Category:Health care by country – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare by city to Category:Health care by city – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Healthcare education to Category:Health care education – C2C: In line with Category:Health care Rathfelder (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I would prefer to rename all the related categories "healthcare..." but there was not agreement on that. NB there are plenty more to follow if this is agreed. Rathfelder (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise, "healthcare" looks more familiar to me, but one of the discussants in the RM mentioned this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Support standardization anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I cant see any variation by geography, but healthcare does seem to be more used in the technological press. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Healthcare is a single compound noun. If US usage is to split the word, I would not object to changing that. It is often the case that a compound noun used adjectivally as in many these cases will be one word, but if used along will be split. This explains why the main article has two words. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My impression, and this is a field where I claim some expertise, is that there is no consistency at all. I have never seen any guidance one way or the other. I dont claim either spelling has any special legitimacy. I just think it would make editors' life easier if we just used one consistent spelling, and the only principle which seems to help is that we should follow the main article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I mostly care for standardization, but this direction is my preference due to consistency with the article. --Trialpears (talk) 19:35, 13 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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television stations in Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Television stations in Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Media in Ponce, Puerto Rico? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging. Ponce, Puerto Rico falls under the purvey of the U.S. FCC for TV licensing and FCC TV licenses are issued to cities ("Ponce, PR") not the state-level government entity ("Puerto Rico", as it's being proposed). In addition, in WP it is standard procedure to categorize US TV stations by city, as shown Here. Mercy11 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging. Ponce is a city and a municipality of Puerto Rico. What is redundant about that? I don't see this category being redundant. Would you also want to merge the TV Stations in the U.S. from their respective city, state and only have a category for the state? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:29, 27 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 manually to Category:Indian film actors and/or Category:Indian child actors‎ as appropriate. MER-C 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian film actors working since their childhood to Category:Indian film actors

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF and WP:ARBITRARYCAT, there are no other working since their childhood categories. Brandmeister^talk 09:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - should this not be merged to Category:Indian child actors‎ instead? Or perhaps a dual merge for actors famous both as child and adult performers? Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge to Category:Indian child actors‎ I came here from WP:India alerts to say just that. This category seems to be useful. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 6 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: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Stock characters in moe culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category was mentioned in the CFD discussion at https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18#Category:Moe_attributes which has now been deleted. The CFD reasoning for this one is the same: the inclusion criteria are rather arbitrary, not mentioned on the linked articles, violating WP:COATRACK and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. HalJor (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my same reasonings from the other CFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 3 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.