Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[edit]

Category:Repetitive guitar-tunings[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion for what's "repetitive". Is EADGBE "repetitive" because it has two E's? Repetitive tuning doesn't have an article. This seems completely arbitrary and non-defining. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Repetition is discussed in the articles with reference to William Sethares's and other reliable sources. For example, unison tuning CCCCCC, major-thirds tuning E-G♯-c-e-g♯-c', augmented fourths tuning BFBFBF, cittern tuning CGCGCG, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why doesn't it have an article? Isn't making a category first putting the cart before the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are discussions of repetition in the article on regular tunings (e.g., repetitive regular tunings have intervals dividing 12), along with its consequences: Easier learning of fretboard/chords and easier improvisation. Individual articles have further discussions: E.g. Major-thirds tuning explains how repetition simplifies chord inversion, reducing it to shifting one finger 3 strings. This property is important enough to be featured in the summary of key features of regular tunings, in the main article (summarized in the guitar tunings article) and in the infobox for regular tunings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sounds technical, and sounds like the nominator is not conversant with the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per two prior other oppose !votes, but I suggest we require an absolute clarification accessible by the non-skilled reader (in which class I place myself) in the header of the category to explain what the category is about. A link to a relevant article will suffice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle:
    Acting on your suggestion, I added an explanation of the category with links to relevant articles at the category. Detailed references are included in linked regular-tuning articles.
    Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, excuse me for thinking something should have a category when it has no corresponding article. In that case, why don't I make a category for Category:Foods made with jksadhflksdfh? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Move to Repetitive guitar-tunings. The category page is a pseudoarticle. It has a talk page that suits the article talk page. Listify the category listing into this article.

    This is not to say that the article is an appropriate article. It may be. Or it may belong merged into Guitar tunings or Regular tuning.

    I am unsure as to whether the category should stay in addition to the new article. It looks to belong in the current structure of Category:Guitar tunings, alongside Category:Regular guitar-tunings. Possibly, the three subpages (3rd being Category:Open tunings) should be upmerged as too small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SmokeyJoe!
    You suggested creating an article from the categorical explanation, but you mention caveats against creating such an article. Would you clarify your position, please?
    There are six open tunings listed in guitar tunings, but a couple don't have stand-alone articles. Open tunings are very important, e.g. for slide guitar, and so they are highlighted in Sethares's guidebook. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend creating the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I started an article, which is referenced.
    I classified it as C class, but it may be start class. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the new article has been questioned as WP:OR, specifically WP:Synthesis, and the DYK nomination is on hold. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. WP:OR and SYNTH are overstatements, it's really a question of independent notability, WP:N. It may be merged. If merged, then this category should be upmerged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, these issues are delicate, and the concerns were fairly stated. I hesitated to write the article because a good article for readers would require abstracting the discussions of repetitive tuning (with author A comparing tunings 1, 2, 3 and author B comparing tunings 1, 3, 4, and author C comparing tunings 4, 5, 6, for example). At DYK, the reviewer reconsidered. However, others are welcome to join the discussion and discuss WP:Synthesis. (The reviewer seemed to be familiar with categorical discussions, so I did not note the notice here at DYK or the talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was briefly tagged with the possible-neologism template, but has been removed by another editor. Others are welcome to discuss that issue also! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is a definition of the membership condition, there are already articles within this category, there is a useful distinction from guitar tunings in general. Any question as to whether the definition and explanation belongs either here, or in a linked article, is firstly mere formatting trivia and secondly probably dependent upon that article size.
The idea that "categories must have a {{cat main}} article or else they should be deleted" is nonsense (and not the first time that TPH has invented such spurious conditions and cited them as if they were policy). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (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:Non-Catholic Christian sex abuse cases[edit]

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 delete WP:CSD#G7. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ambiguous open-ended category. The entries in this category should instead be in a parent category (e.g. Christian sex abuse cases). That category should include the Catholic sub-category. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the entirety of the nominator's rationale. Create the higher level category if not already present and migrate the contents of this category into it and relevant (yet to be created?) sub categories. The creator is doing an excellent job with sorting out this hierarchy 0f categories. One cannot get everything right. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense, will do that. GoodParabolē (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not empty categories that are under discussion, as a general rule (and one that is explicitly stated in the CfD procedures). It is helpful to see how editors are using a category when it is under discussion.- choster (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a procedural note, the category was only created today, as part of an exercise to regularise the categories (in my opinion). As such no editors are actually using it save for the editor who created it, who agrees with the nomination. This is a good case for WP:IAR. I imagine the category may be speedied if the creating editor suggests it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes agree, please delete the category at will. GoodParabolē (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have requested speedy deletion based upon your message above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, there should be no logical inversions in a category name. Yworo (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2012 (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:Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT ; satellite is inactive, and objects discovered by this satellite appear in its subcategory. No upmerge needed, since the satellite is already categorized in them, and the subcategory should not be categorized into them. Aside from the subcategory, there is only the satellite article in this category. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2012 (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:Native American fiction books[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and could either refer to books about Native Americans or books written by Native Americans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Support on the basis of the wording inside the category. It is obviously what the creator intended. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and restate the purpose, as it only contains sub-categories which are not necessarily about Native Americans (even if that is mostly the case), but by Native Americans. This has been incorrectly added into Category:Books about Native Americans. It needs to be removed from there and put up into Category:Native American literature, which is part of Category:American literature by ethnic background. There should be two-way "see also" links with Category:Books about Native Americans. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FayL. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this category is being used to group works written by Native Americans. I am not convinced that this function is needed, but the proposed rename will totally change the category to something it is not. I would discorage creating the porposed target, but if the person can find books that fit the propsed target they are welcome to seek to create the category, but the current contents of the category would not at all belong in the target as a group. Some of the works of the mentioned authors here might also fit the propsed target, but as a group they do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (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:Canadian Mohawk people[edit]

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. As there are both Category:Mohawk people and the wider Category:People of Mohawk descent, it is not WP:OCAT to sub-categorise both by their legal nationality. There are also Category:Canadian Métis people‎, Category:Canadian Inuit people‎, Category:American Inuit people‎ etc. If self-identification is a problem, as stated by the nominator, perhaps a group nomination to rename all such categories to "Foo people from Bar" might work. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge (or rename). This category is an admirable attempt to provide readers for a way to determine if bio articles are from Mohawks in what is now Ontario, Quebec or New York State. Still, the Mohawk people reject (to varying degrees) being defined by Canadian or U.S. citizenship. If kept, I'd propose a rename to Mohawk people in Canada (or Ontario or Quebec) as the current name, again, seems to emphasize nationality (which is an imposition) as opposed to location. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything in the category description that precludes that. Yes, I think that would work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (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:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by decade[edit]

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 into Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. The "by decade" category will have to wait until the 19th century category can be evaluated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename Delete. Normal building tree category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that there really is no reason for this category. The proposed renames below would be fine with some sorting of the categories and by including these in Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings, it would encourage the movement of the articles into subcategories. Even if the change below this fails, this category still is not needed and in fact its existence could discourage migration into the by year categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2012 (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:Roman Catholic churches completed in the 1930s[edit]

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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. By decade categories add an unnecessary level of navigation. Virtually all building categories are organized on a by year or by century basis and they do not pose a navigation issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but merge the annual categories into these. Sampling indicates that a lot of annual catgories have just one article. This does not provide a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the actual categories now have just one article. Looking at the 2 article categories - most of them will have more by the end.JASpencer (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the nomination. How can somethign be renamed to two different titles? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is better to group by 10 then 10 rather than group into 100. JASpencer (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2012 (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:Monorchism[edit]

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, no point in dragging this out any further. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is this editor's third attempt at creating this category in some form or another (see Category:Monorchid people and Category:Monorchistic people). The editor is well aware that the other two categories are nominated for deletion and that all other editors have so far agreed that these categories need to go. At this stage, creating this category is pure disruption. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SEE ALSO: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_4#Category:Monorchid_people.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I submit that there should be one category for the people named 'Monorchid people' and a category for the nonintersecting qualifying condition 'Monorchism'. Category:Amputations and Category:Amputees, in similarity, already exist but don't seem to precisely apply. Same with Category:Castration and Category:Castrated people. What are alternative suggestions for addressing this gap in coverage/treatment of the subject matter as far as categorisation for the individuals affected and the syndrome they have in common?Oxycut (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The comparison with "castration" is inapt. There are several ways for an individual to have only one testicle, whereas there is only one way for an individual to be castrated. The fact that various men have been born with a single testicle, had one surgically excised for a variety of reasons (torsion, agenesis, herniae, etc.), or suffered scrotal trauma is not defining for those men. The strong BLP issues and RS issues associated with these three categories add additional problems.Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the condition is not defining (and in any case there is a list within Monorchism) and so a 'people' subcat is not admissible; accordingly there are insufficient articles for a topic category. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Category:Diabetes supposed to be about a 'defining' condition too? No. It's a category that aids to link together a number of articles which have relationship to a medical syndrome. My research discloses that there's no lower limit to the number of members in a category. There can be one like in Category:Gambian amputeesOxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diabetes doesn't have to be 'relevant to a person's notability' for there to be a category which groups together numerous article which aren't disputed to have some relationship to its subject matter.Oxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on the simple basis that, while it is not a defining characteristic, it is a definite characteristic. I'm tempted to go down the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS route to argue in favour of keeping it, but that would be counter-productive. I am wondering if it is because the body part is a testicle that this discussion is being held at all. It's not as if we have categories Category:Those missing only the left testicle and Category:Those missing only the right testicle, which would be a restrictive definition too far(!). The fact that men exist and function perfectly acceptably with one testicle only is important to those suffering from or afraid to report their own personal testicular cancer. It is heartening to see a group of notable people who have, for one reason or another, lost one of the pair, and who are citably functioning without it. I think the category has a psychological, medical and encyclopaedic benefit for being present. I believe the benefits of retaining this category far outweigh any possible technical and procedural reasons for removing it. There are times to make a wise decision instead of a procedural one. This is one such time. However it and the other categories reflecting this single topic shoudl be rationalised such that only one exists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly reject that type of argument. Call me cold-hearted but we're an encyclopedia, not a support group. We don't have categories for sufferers of alopecia or people who have only one functioning kidney despite the fact that both conditions can be quite problematic. The key here is the difference between problematic and defining. Besides, if people with monochrism want to see a list of examples, it's already in the article. Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one more thing: it's true that we wouldn't necessarily have this discussion if it was a different body part. Indeed, everyone agrees that Category:Amputees makes sense. But this is because missing a leg is typically defining. Nobody here is skittish about discussing testicles and you can see above and in the related CfDs that people are perfectly comfortable defending Category:Castrated people. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, navigation between pages is already easy through the links in the article. Keeping the category would make it liable to be used inappropriately for biographies; the list of people in the article is better for this, as it has explanations and sources. – Fayenatic London 20:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no people in this categoryOxycut (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at the moment; but other editors might add them later, especially if the other one is deleted. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too small, as it shouldn't contain biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy delete. Category creator Oxycut (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a troll; this category appears to have been created in bad faith for the purpose of trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a category 'Monorchism and monorchid people' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NudeGovernment (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NudeGovernment has been identified as a sockpuppet of Oxycut. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This property does not seem to be defining. A category for testicle-cancer survivors (who've not had two orchiectomies) would make sense; other conditions suggesting prudent orchiectomies could also be the basis of categories. (Reliable sources demonstrating that monorchism is a useful concept would change my mind, though....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:33, 9 September 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_7&oldid=1136102850"