Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 11



Category:Skaters (band)

 * 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) 05:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting skaters (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent. The subcategories are interlinked and not enough other related articles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per countless precedents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Undrafted National Football League players

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting undrafted national football league players


 * Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-notable characteristic. Few to no professional athletes, outside of #1 overall picks, are known for their draft status. That this category has nearly 3,700 entries demonstrates that not being drafted and playing professional sports is common and not worthy of categorization. This category's companion,, would not be a useful category and neither is this. TM 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Noting prior discussion for the record. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The nomination makes sense, I can't think of any valid argument for keeping it. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 08:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the others in Category:Undrafted sports competitors by league. Is it the same premise. Someone will probably say WP:OTHERSTUFF but if it's the same premise, it would be inconsistent to not nominate the others as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I nominated this one to see if editors were open to deleting this type of category. If this one is successful, I will nominate the others.--TM 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but diffuse all contents into subcategories delineating exactly how these players entered the NFL if not through the draft. Walk-on tryouts? Transfers from other sports leagues? My impression is that it is a fairly remarkable thing to end up in the NFL without going through a draft. bd2412  T 02:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not remarkable. Approximately 3,700 biographies have been written about players who have not been drafted but made an NFL team. All players either are drafted and sign a contract or sign a much smaller contract as an undrafted free agent. There are no sports leagues from which a player could transfer. Every single NFL player was eligible to be drafted and they were either selected or not, but it is a pretty unremarkable process except for the top few selections in any given draft.--TM 03:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Transfer" was an inartful term. I was referring to players who came to an NFL team from a different sport or league. It can't be all that common, for example, for a person with no football experience to walk in and earn a spot on a pro team in an open tryout. bd2412  T 20:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the category at hand.--TM 21:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Crystalline solids

 * 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:Crystals. Disclosure: I participated in this, but am closing per consensus against my previous ideas.  – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Crystalline solids to Category:Polycrystalline solids
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename and restructure to become a sub-cat of Category:Crystals. The article Crystal equates "crystal" and "crystalline solid", but says that most metals & ceramics are polycrystalline solids. A small amount of recategorising will be required. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:Crystalline solids to Category:Crystals – C2D: According to the article Crystal, a crystal and a crystalline solid seem to be the same thing. —Kri (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article also refers to polycrystalline solids, and that appears to match most of the contents of the category. I will propose a renaming and restructure. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Close -- I note there is a speedy merge nom in favour of Category:Crystals, which seems appropriate. That is currently a sub-cat, so that it may be appropriate to reverse merge that then rename, to give effect to this without orphaning anything.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference I've added the earlier speedy nomination. Also, for what it's worth, I note that the word "polycrystalline" hardly ever occurs in the articles that are in this category. That is not a decisive argument but it may be food for thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I withdraw my objection to the speedy nomination, i.e. I agree to merge to sub-cat Crystals. Note that the target page has to be edited manually after the bot process in such a case. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:1920 in Northern Ireland sport

 * 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:1920 in Irish sport (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1920 in Northern Ireland sport to Category:1920 in Irish sport and Category:1920 in British sport
 * Nominator's rationale: Category is an anachronism. Northern Ireland didn't exist till 1921. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge only to Category:1920 in Irish sport. Yes it's an anachronism, but it should be merged only to the Irish parent. The whole of Ireland was part of the UK in that period, so any British categories belong higher up the tree -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with proposal to upmerge provided that Category:1920 in Northern Ireland is also upmerged as anomalous. And retain the dual merge toCategory:1920 in Irish sport and Category:1920 in British sport. In 1921 the Belfast-based sport articles are included in the category Category:1921 in Northern Ireland  sport which is a subcategory of British sport. It would be an anomaly for the 1919 and 1921 articles on sport in Belfast for 1920, 1919–20 Irish League and 1920–21 Irish League to be subcategories of British sport for 1919 and 1921 but not for 1920. The problem due to 1921 being the first year for Northern Ireland but 1920 for Ireland (with Category:1920 in Ireland not being a subcategory of  Category:1920 in the United Kingdom though Category:1919 in Ireland is). Hugo999 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Hugo999 I see no way in which a dual upmerge can be appropriate. This was a period when Ireland was a united entity and still de jure part of the United Kingdom, so whatever relationship there should be to UK categories, that relationship should be resolved by parenting the Ireland-level categories.  Dual upmerge takes some of the Irish topics and places them in a British category not applied to the others, and I can see no basis for that.
 * Category:1920 in Northern Ireland contains only the nominated Category:1920 in Northern Ireland sport, so it should simply be deleted. There is nothing to merge. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @BrownHairedGirl At the this time, 1920 in Irish Sport isn't subcategorized 1920 in British Sport, though Scottish and Welsh Sport are. Shouldn't 1920 in Irish Sport be also and for any other years it was part of GB? 1920 in the United Kingdom has 1920 in Ireland as a category as do earlier years....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @William: logically, the 1801–1922 Irish categories should be under a United Kingdom parent. But note that phrase "United Kingdom".
 * Categorising Irish things as "British" would be a highly controversial POV move, because most Irish people bitterly object to being labelled as British. (As the Irish Nobel Laureate poet Seamus Heaney wrote, "No glass of ours was ever raised to toast the Queen".)
 * If and when the "Years in British sport" categs are ever renamed to neutral titles, then yes, of course the 1801–1922 "Years in Irish sport" should be in them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've modified the CFD to not include a merge to British sport because of their being no other case of Irish sport being subcategorized as such. A pub fight discussion needs to take place first. @BrownHairedGirl, I'm part Irish(and Scottish, German, Dutch, Italian and I'm married to a Filipina), my maternal grandmother was named Francis Hennessy. Didn't know Heaney's quote before today but am familiar with Irish feelings towards GB....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge only to Category:1920 in Irish sport. Most sport is organised separately in the various home nations of UK.  The Irish Sport tree goes back to 1860.  The Gaelic Athletic Association was (is) an Irish Nationalist sporting movement.  It might be appropriate to add a "See also" item to British categories, but not to parent it there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Software companies of the United States by state

 * 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) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting software companies of the united states by state


 * Nominator's rationale: It does not serve the encyclopedic purpose. It is like building a directory for any kind of software companies in USA. This can easily be managed by Software company in USA. here it will serve the purpose for Spammer on Wikipedia. More categories more better for promotions. Light2021 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep To me, this looks like an ordinary by-state container category. How is it different from other by-state company categories, such as Category:Manufacturing companies in the United States by state or Category:Railroads of the United States by state?  Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * keep for the reasons provided by Nyttend which are complete and understandable. No evidence this has anything to do with spam or promotions. This is normal WP categorization at work: to provide connections between parts of WP to help readers navigate among related articles. Hmains (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
 * keep per the reasons states by Nyttend. Dimadick (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:DJs from Northern Ireland

 * 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: Speedy keep. The nominator (user talk:TheMagnificentist) made the substantively same proposal only a few weeks ago at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 21. Raising it again so soon is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:DJs from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish DJs
 * Nominator's rationale: For consistency. All the other subcategories of DJs are "xxx DJs" not "DJs from xxx" - The   Magnificentist  12:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Harem video games

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting harem video games


 * Nominator's rationale: A video game featuring a harem is not a WP:CATDEF. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is it parented to Category:Harem anime and manga? The Harem (genre) is a distinctive Japanese genre, where a male or female protagonist has 3 or more love interests, and is involved in a polygamous relationship. (Whether the love interests are of the same or opposite sex to the protagonist, or they include both sexes, varies by series.) Since when does the genre cover videogames? Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on your last sentence one might suspect that you support deletion of the nominated category. Could you please confirm? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, or rename to Category:harem (genre) video games for clarity. The two current members are anime or manga which also have a video game adaptation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 05:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  05:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Neighborhoods

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods to Category:Neighbourhoods
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent article is Neighbourhood, and Neighborhood is a redirect to it. I didn't want to send this to CFDS because there was a bit of a copy/paste-move-war some time back at the latter page, so someone might object that the article's current name isn't stable enough.  Non-localised subcategories, e.g. Category:Fictional neighborhoods, will need to be renamed unless this nomination is rejected somehow.  Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.