Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Category:Metatitle pop[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There does not appear to be a definition for this term and it does not appear to be in any sort of common usage. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a clearly defined way to group things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was created in 2009 as an "administrative tracking category", and the banner indicated it was a hidden category. Why was the original banner removed? Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2013 (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:United States television episode stubs[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/merge to Category:Television episode stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I tried to populate this category, but given that there's already sub-categories for episodes of comedy, drama, and science fiction episode stubs. this category seems redundant. Category should be deleted, and the few articles it contains can be upmerged to Category:Television episode stubs or one of its sub-categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (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:Family and early life[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: administrative close: speedily deleted by another editor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category will probably only ever have one purpose, which is to host this person's user page. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify as an article -- This is a draft article (or more probably a section of one) sitting in category space. It should go into the creator's sandbox so that he can turn it inot a proper article, which can be uploaded, it then passes a new article test. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to creator's sandbox per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (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:More Turkey categories[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/Delete/Rename per nomination. Note the bot may not fix everything, so manual editing of categories may be required to complete this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP uses Ottoman Empire not Turkey for periods before 1922. All lead to a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing:

From 1905 there are sporting sub-cats which are automatically populating annual categories, including category-redirects. I do not know how to fix this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these may be tagged for rename rather than merge, due to the omission of "the". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is a complete nom. I am seeking to merge/rename years in Turkey to years in the Ottoman Empire, but to merge establishments into decades in the Ottoman Empire. One of the 1880s categories includes something for Egypt, which may be theoretically correct, but Egypt was (I think) effectively self-governing by then. If I have missed anything, please add it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Personally I would have wielded the knife with more gusto. I'd have put all the "by year" categories into a "by decade" category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the year navigation templates used add this stuff to the by year categories. The decade categories are manually added. The establishment template adds these to the by year categories and the decade ones if they exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment -- I thought this was enough to do in one nom. We can merge the years to decades later, but that will need a wider upmerge, to keep it in a "year in continent" category. This will need to be done manually, since Turkey (or Ottoman Empire) straddles the boundary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ottoman Empire is clearly the better term for the time involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't these be renamed to "Anatolia" ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Istabul is not part of Anatolia! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That can be fixed by recategorizing those into a second tree (unless everything is about Istanbul?)-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But where would we put the Istanbul stuff? Plus, some of these categories contain things like wars the Ottoman Empire was involved in, so Istanbul is not the only place not in Anatolia involved, or the Ottoman Public Debt Comission.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems more like needing to add a parent category called Ottoman, instead of getting rid of Anatolia-level organization. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is not enough Anatolia stuff to be worth subdividing by. We have consistently avoided dividing out other subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire, we group together things happening in modern Syria, Israel, Bulgaria, Greece where is was under Ottoman control, Lebanon and other areas still under the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Why do we need such categories for an entiny established in the 1920s? Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2013 (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:Television awards for Best Younger Actor[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 both to Category:Awards for young actors and actresses; once it is populated as discussed, feel free to nominate the new category for deletion if users still feel it is inappropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are unnecessary (the 3 articles in them are in other categories), don't fit into the category tree (these categories are themselves uncategorized) and (if kept) would need to be renamed to avoid excessive capitalisation. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to broaden it to Category:Awards for young actors and Category:Awards for young actresses (or perhaps merge both to the former). This is parenting an article for an Emmy award, which (I think) we regard as a notable award. This is a category for awards, not award recipients, and so is a legitimate category. I expect there are other awards that could populate the category. With the number of acting awards, it should not be difficult to find a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to broaden it to Category:Awards for young actors and actresses to make it a category that both uses young actors and actresses particapating in a Film and Television.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will support that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I do not see how the proposed substitute category is ever going to contain articles other than the two daytime Emmys, because I would question whether other awards use the same definition of "younger" or even care about age at all. A quick check shows, for instance, that the Tonys, Baftas, and primetime Emmys do not have any such category. Seyasirt (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. If we rename it to Category:Awards for young actors and actresses, we could have the The Daytime Emmys, Young Artist Awards, Saturn Awards, Women Film Critics Circle etc.....  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How young is "young"? The Emmy cuts off at 25; the Young Artist Award at 21. Seyasirt (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The age does not matter at all. When a award uses Outstanding/Best Young, Youth, Child etc... Then the article will be used in this category. Also, the Oscars had a category named Academy Juvenile Award.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unneeded level of categorization. I am not convinced we need the specific awards categories involved either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2013 (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:SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award winners[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award#Recipients. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2013 (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 Indian film actresses[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 to Category:20th-century Indian actresses and Category:Indian film actresses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This can be adequately covered by Category:20th-century Indian actresses and Category:Indian film actresses. No other subcategory of Category:20th-century actresses categorizes by medium. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to ensure that we do not lose data. Most Indian drama is film-based, so that I doubt there is a need to split against performance medium. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2013 (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:LSD users[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think this is a good idea for a category, due to WP:BLP concerns. Also, this is rarely going to be a defining characteristic for anyone. Zagalejo^^^ 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining and a BLP nightmare. Others Cats relating to drink-drivers and drug abuse have been deleted. Think this one should follow.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Too many WP:BLP issues....William 12:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on precedent of other drug and alcohol users categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the potential BLP issue involved with placing people in this category. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Many similar categories have been deleted in the past. e.g. Drug addicts, former drug addicts, and LSD Users (the latter was deleted for a second timea month later). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial in most cases. Some amount of people used it once in their long lives. We general do not categorize by use of substances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (a) not defining; (b) BLP; (c) ill-defined: used once? used n times? used continuously? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2013 (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/2013_August_26&oldid=1138397672"