Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

Category:Dream SMP

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dream SMP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary Catagory, Contains 6 articles. 3 of which are redirects, Which is too low to justify a whole category. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, 7 unique articles including the Dream SMP article. 3 of the articles are redirects, with 2 of those redirects simply going to the Dream SMP article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is only the main article and a subcategory. It would be very helpful to keep the articles in the category during the discussion. See the explicit instruction about that at the WP:CFD page. Or at least be transparent about which articles have been removed and why. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Apologies. I'm interpreting the subcategory as part of the main category. If that's incorrect let me know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The nomination entails the subcategory (with 8 articles) to be kept, but then Category:Dream SMP is entirely redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed. Decision Made - Delete PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contents of the category should be moved to Category:Minecraft servers (including members subcat). SWinxy (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. I was also the one who brought this up on WT:VG which was what prompted Perry to start this CFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rather merge to Category:Minecraft servers. This is a typcial case of an eponymous category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2022 (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:Pioneer Railcorp

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. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pioneer Railcorp to Category:Pioneer Lines

Nominator's rationale: new corporate name per https://pioneerlines.com/ and Legal Entity Identifier https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300E3MW3FRQ0U9M24 Funandtrvl (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I see absolutely no reason to not. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to LEI, the corporate name change was on 12 June 2021. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency with the main article at Pioneer Lines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2022 (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.

Latgalian artists

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 Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:21st-century Latgalian artists to Category:Latgalian artists

Nominator's rationale: Merge, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_9#Category:20th-century_Latgalian_painters. Also add in Jāzeps Pīgoznis and Antons Kūkojs who were recategorised in that nomination, and Category:Latgalian ceramists. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just create Category:Latgalian artists as a parent, and Category:20th-century Latgalian artists containing Jāzeps Pīgoznis, Antons Kūkojs and Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists (which currently has 9 members). – Fayenatic London 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge to Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists per WP:SMALLCAT. Currently there is only one article which is about a ceramist who died in 2004. A Latgalian artist parent category is unnecessary per WP:OCEGRS, as an unrelated intersection of occupation by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, that makes sense. There is an article Latgalian pottery which confirms a valid intersection for ceramists, and even for C20 ceramists specifically. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow: SMALLCATEGORY. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow per SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Latvian artists. Having a category for one article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2022 (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:Organizations associated with effective altruism

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. A cursory look at the organizations listed indicates that this cat comprises a variety of organizations that are just doing "good things", generally without a clear explanation of what their "association" with effective altruism consists of. I also see a potential for corporate abuse, as any company that declares its love for effective altruism in its PR materials is liable to be listed there. Disclosure: I come from Talk:FTX. JBchrch talk 23:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Effective altruism is not just doing good things. These are organizations associated in material, cultural, and ideological ways with the particular philosophical and social movement of effective altruism. This is why the WikiProject Effective Altruism was started and why editors have been working hard to populate this and related categories. However, I think you could rename it "Effective altruism organizations" or something to reduce vagueness; I don't have a strong opinion there. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what an "effective altruism organization" would be. Those are either non-profits, charities etc... It would be like saying "utilitarian organizations" or "consequentialist organizations" -- what would that mean? There's no getting around the notion that a "[ideology] organizations" cat is just like saying "organization associated with [ideology]". I was not implying, however, that effective altruism is just doing good things, just noting that this category currently fails at precise and effective categorization, which is precisely why ASSOCIATEDWITH exists. JBchrch talk 14:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like clarification on this point. Are they organisations who happen to act in a way consistent with effective altruism? Ones that actively and explicitly promote it? Ones that explicitly self-identify or are consistently explicitly identified as having a philosophy of effective altruism? If it's the former, that's absolutely too vague and unhelpful, and should be deleted. If it's either or both of the latter, the category needs to be purged, renamed (likely to Category:Effective altruism organizations, as suggested), and have a category description to that effect. Or maybe it would still need to be deleted, depending on whether any articles actually meet the definition. If the definition is something else, I would say it still should be purged, renamed, and have a good description (and maybe deleted anyway). --Xurizuri (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on if the category is kept it should be renamed, in order to avoid weasel language. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. I think we can have much more specificity than "utilitarian" or "consequentialism." Those are schools of thought, not social movements. I think self-identification and third-party identification should both count towards inclusion in this category, whether or not it's renamed. Like most things on Wikipedia, this is a matter of degree, not kind. Jmill1806 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see there being a problem of subjectivity here. Either it passes WP:CATVER (i.e. it's consistently described in RS as being associated with effective altruism) or it doesn't. I'm open to Jmill1806's suggestion of perhaps renaming to something like "Effective altruism organizations". Colin M (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point and an extra reason for deletion. Sources about these organizations do not consistently describe them as associated with effective altruism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful and reasonable category. As I've never searched for sth like that I had regrettably never seen it. Wikipedia is made for the usability of our users! --Just N. (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something that makes it clear "effective" is actually part of a technical term and not some PR glorification (can't imagine the average person is going to be too familiar with the concept named effective altruism, so the fact that it's actually the common name of the idea and not mere PR fluff isn't going to come across for most people). Maybe something like Category:Organizations within the effective altruism movement. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that's just paraphrasing "associated with". JBchrch talk 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To enable consideration of renaming proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 16:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jmill1806. Dimadick (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Just N. (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2022 (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:Atomic Cities

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Atomic Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Atomic city" doesn't appear to be a thing and nothing fits at Atomic City. Perhaps could be merged elsewhere. Brandmeister^talk 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2022 (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:ABS-CBN television drama filmed in high definition

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:ABS-CBN television drama filmed in high definition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No similar category exists for any other television company anywhere in the world. Little affinity between the members of the set. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2022 (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:LXQt

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Category:LXQt

Category:Incinerators in Adelaide

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Incinerators in Adelaide to Category:Incinerators

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2022 (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:Waste facilities in Israel

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Waste facilities in Israel to Category:Waste processing sites

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles, and not part of an established country scheme, possibly due to the small size of Category:Waste processing sites. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 14 March 2022 (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:Skinny houses

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Skinny houses to Category:Spite houses

Nominator's rationale: From what I see, skinny houses are basically the same as spite houses, we just don't have the skinny house article, unlike spite house. Brandmeister^talk 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not a fan of Category:Skinny houses because membership in the category appears to be quite subjective. However, it's clear that not all (in fact most) houses in Category:Skinny houses are not spite houses, they just happen to be unusually narrow. Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I'd nominate for deletion. Neither web nor books indicate their notability as a standalone thing. Brandmeister^talk 11:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's later reply. Listification may still be appropriate though. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's later reply. --Just N. (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack an article on skinny house as a concept. We also lack any even proposed definition, let alone one that has reliable source agreement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2022 (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:Suspended structures

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: reverse merge to Category:Suspended structures (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Suspended structures to Category:Suspension structures

Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem to have the same scope. We can quibble about the correct name for the category since we have suspended structure but suspension bridge and Category:Suspension bridges. I'm fine with merging the two categories to Category:Suspended structures if that's the consensus here. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manual merge, per nom, but note that bridges articles should not be added to the target since they are already in the bridges subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed after relisting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer reverse merge -- suspension bridges and cable-stayed bridges should be subcategories. Alternatively move most of the content (non-bridge) to a new Category:suspended buildings subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron is right, it should be a reverse merge per main article Suspended structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per main article Suspended structure. --Just N. (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (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 communities that were destroyed in the Holocaust

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. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish communities that were destroyed in the Holocaust to Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Too verbose. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overly long title. Dimadick (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brevity is commendable in cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: would say the same in fewer words. --El clemente (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2022 (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:Senators of the 60th and 61st legislature of Mexico

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Category:Senators of the 60th and 61st legislature of Mexico

Category:Senators of the LXIV Legislature of Mexico

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Category:Senators of the LXIV Legislature of Mexico