Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 23



Category:Manga-influenced comics

 * 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) 09:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Propose deleting manga-influenced comics


 * Nominator's rationale: Manga *are* comics. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on the article history of manga, the post-World War II examples are certainly comics in the modern sense. I am rather less certain how to treat the application of the term "manga" to older works, such as the Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga (12th century). Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 23 June 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:Bills (government debt)

 * 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: WP:SOFTDELETE, redirecting to Category:Government bonds and merging the contents to Category:Government bonds issued by France / US. The defenders of this category have not demonstrated that it has a useful meaning distinct from Govt bonds. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bills (government debt)


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, it doesn't contain any specific bills and the one overview article in this category is in the right categories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep BTF (finance) was in the category until Marcocapelle removed it last week. jnestorius(talk) 14:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the partitioning of treasury securities in treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds and TIPS is exclusively American; the French article BTF is about "bons" which simply translates as "coupons". Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The BTF (finance) article begins "BTFs (Bons du Trésor à taux fixe et à intérêts précomptés) are fixed-rate short-term discount Treasury bills". If that is incorrect then it is more important to change the text than merely to change the category. A meaningful edit summary explaining one's reasoning is also helpful for other users. jnestorius(talk) 22:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate (unless someone can suggest a merge target). I am not clear about the structure of US government debt, but the kind of which I have most usually heard are government bonds.  The article implies bills are a wider category than bonds.  In UK, 18th century wars were financed by Ordnance Debentures and Navy Bills, both of which were issued by government agencies when payment for a supply was authorised but could not yet be made: they were paid in the order in which they were issued.  A person wanting early payment could sell his bill, and an active market existed.  I do not know whether we have articles on these, but they could go in the category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please then suggest appropriate articles to populate it with. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 25 June 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:18th-century Dutch inventors

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:18th-century Dutch inventors to Category:Dutch inventors and Category:18th-century inventors
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in this category. Note that both articles are already in Category:18th-century Dutch scientists as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate -- I am surprised there are only 2 articles. There are 12 in the 17th century one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This should not be surprising. The amount of articles in the 17th century is exceptionally large for such a small country, and this is correlated with the Dutch Golden Age. The 18th century in contrast was a stage of decline in the Dutch Republic. Actually more surprising is the fact that there are hardly any 18th-century inventors from other countries in the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If decision is to merge, please add Category:18th-century Dutch scientists when merging. It decision is to not merge, it has already been added to current Category:18th-century Dutch inventors. Thanks— Look2See1  t a l k →  03:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, both articles of this category are also in Category:18th-century Dutch scientists anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:46, 28 June 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:Laws affecting youth rights

 * 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: something must be done, so split Category:Laws affecting youth rights mostly to Category:Children's rights instruments (international conventions) and Category:Children's rights legislation, then rename what's left to Category:Juvenile case law, and restructure them all under the existing sibling Category:Juvenile law. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Laws affecting youth rights to Category:Youth rights laws
 * Nominator's rationale: "Laws affecting X" seems like a poor phrasing. Suggest renaming to fix it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- The category is a right hotchpotch, mixing international conventions, some more related to children than youth, with the statute and law of several countries. This ought mainly to be a container category, but is not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename laws to law, with no comment on the nominator's proposal. The current title sounds like it's meant for individual laws, e.g. Child Benefit Act 2005 but not Child labour law or the case law subcategory.  This really ought to be a parent to Category:Child labour law.  Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Category:Children's rights instruments to Category:Children's rights legislation, which is indeed the parent of Category:Child labour law as requested by Nyttend. Both categories are about children (which may include youth), as earlier correctly pointed out by Peterkingiron, so they should be merged. I have tagged Category:Children's rights instruments as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  02:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  04:53, 23 June 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:Anti-aging substances

 * 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. There is simply a lack of support to take any particular action with this category.  ℯ  xplicit  06:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting anti-aging substances


 * Nominator's rationale: The category's name seems misleading. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * keep nothing misleading about the name. It matches the contents and the stated inclusion of the category: "Substances that (a) have been shown to increase longevity or retard senescence or some aspects thereof, (b) are widely believed to do so or (c) are widely promoted as such. Some of these substances are endogenous." Hmains (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Split, (a) (b) and (c) are too far apart to put it all in one category. Also I'm not sure whether we need (b) at all. And finally we should purge the category and remove substances for treatment of specific (age-related) diseases. e.g. Zoledronic acid should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It probably ought to be "alleged anti-aging substances", since I do not believe that there are any real ones, but I am prepared to leave the name as it is. Splitting will not work since it raises POV issues.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps after some splitting. After Peterkingiron's comment I've started to read a few more articles of this category and many of them are neither clearly defined as anti-aging substances nor as alleged anti-aging substances. A few days ago after reading the main articles Geroprotector, Senotherapeutics and Zoledronic acid I had no doubts that this was a useful category, but meanwhile I'm rather inclined to believe this is a case of WP:NONDEF. We may keep Senotherapeutics, Geroprotector and Senolytics together as Category:Senotherapeutics but that would be a small category. We may also keep Anti-aging cream, Anti-aging supplements and No. 7 (brand) together as Category:Anti-aging supplements which would be equally small. But other than that I suppose there is no need to keep something. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've just added Biological immortality. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The category being discussed is about substances, not about concepts. For concepts we already have Category:Senescence. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep if change to "alleged" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For example Senolytic is not alleged, it's just a subject of research in the field of senescence. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 14 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.