Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest notified in 1995[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, with leave to renominate the tree if desired, perhaps under the proposal by JPL, which failed to attract much discussion, quite possibly as this nom had gone stale. The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm bringing this here as a general discussion about the entire tree. How is when the site is notified of an interest defining? Rather then outright deletion, maybe these should all be listified. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose There is no reason to discuss this one by year category alone. The whole tree should be discussed together, not in a choppy form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I looked at a few of these, and the notification and year of said notification was in the lede for all of them. I'm not sure of the significance of this "notification" however - if you went and visited them would there be a plaque commemorating the year? Otherwise, might we group by decade instead of having all this little cats? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no use for the date of notification. Cats by location (County); type (plants, animals etc) are all that is needed. Put the dates into a list. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I take this to be a sample nom to be followed if successful by the other 30 ore more. I think that SSSI is essentially a British category. Many of the annual categories have 20-30 articles, but some under 10. This is enough for a worthwhile tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems to me a perfectly sensible way to categorise SSSIs. Note that it's a subcategory of the well-defined category structure Category:Protected areas by year of establishment. Robofish (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seems to be part of the Category:Establishments by year category tree where we are using very specific terminology of "notified" to mean the year of creation of a site. Tim! (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These sites were not created in that year. The plants or animals had been there for many years; the only change is that they now have some protection. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment definition in the relevant WP article on this subject Site of Special Scientific Interest: "The process of designating a site as a Special Scientific Interest is called notification; this is followed by consultation with the site's owners and occupiers, and the notification is then confirmed or withdrawn (in whole or part)."
    • Which would imply that the current name is inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a minimum the contents should be upmerged to Category:1995 establishments in the United Kingdom, no just totally deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems reasonable as a compromise keeping it in the establishments tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 30 July 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:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack[edit]

Non-admin close. This is already under discussion on May 21 CFD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. 103.15.43.2 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Notable Deal or No Deal contestants[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) 02:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Notable' shouldn't appear in category names, as it goes without saying that they only include the notable ones: in theory, only notable people have Wikipedia biographies in the first place. Compare Category:Jeopardy! contestants‎, Category: Sasuke (TV series) contestants‎, etc. Robofish (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Not a bad idea. Support as category creator.--Launchballer 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is that if we remove the "notable", anyone who ever participated in this show no matter how much it does not connect with their other actions would be in here. This is a classic performer by perfornace category, and we should just delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there is only one person who is truly notable for having played this game show, and I have just nominated her article for deletion, as it is the *only* thing I can find that makes her notable. One of the other guys won 10 pounds the first time he played. Delete, this is not defining. I will look at th others and potentially nominate those for deletion tool. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) This is a performance by perfoirmer category, which we do not allow (2) appearance on the show was generally an insignificant feature of their life. The exception is the person whose winning enabled him to set up in business. HOwever, this exception doies not justify haivng the cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 30 May 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.

College football announcers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: At CFD 2013 April 3, 14 similar categories were deleted on the grounds that they are a type of "performers by performance" category, which causes un-necessary clutter on articles.
The same applies here: it may be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a broadcaster that they covered one sport rather than another ... but they are not defined by the precise set of events which they covered.
Note that several of these categories were created ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) by Ashbeckjonathan (talk · contribs), who had previously created at least one of the categories nominated at CFD 2013 April 3, and participated in that discussion. This seems like an WP:IDHT problem. --18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • Merge, per the previous CFD. These are overcategorisation of performers by performance - commenting on a particular event is not usually a defining characteristic of a sports commentator. Robofish (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Upmerge all listed categories to "Category:College football announcers." From the perspective of someone who works on American college football articles, these newly created categories represent an over-categorization of the subject area, and do not impart any particularly useful information to the reader. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and possibly purge if any of the people are not really notable for this but for other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge -- but the target is a category of nearly 800 articles. Can any one suggest a better way of splitting it? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's the problem, Peter: most of the nearly 750 persons listed in the main category are local broadcasters, covering American college football games within a state or region, or even just those of a single university team. The vast majority of the persons who cover the end-of-season college football bowl games are national broadcasters, and most them cover multiple bowl games, and thus subcategorizing by bowl games simply creates redundant category clutter in the bios of individual national broadcasters. There may be a subcategorization solution to the very large main category, but these subcategories are not it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, then delete otherwise its performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering how many categories we have that are well over 1,000 articles, I really do not think we need to look at how to divide this category. Plus, this method of division leads to the creation of lots of categories for specific articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge all to Category:College football announcers--GrapedApe (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per arguments made above. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 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:Calvinist clergy[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with this CfD, merge this category and its sub-categories and rename Category:Calvinist and Reformed clergy and equivalents for subcategories. The reason for this is that these adjectives are commonly used interchangeably in reliable sources as well as here on WP, and when they are used to mean different things they are used in different ways by different people. JFH (talk) 18:24, 29 May 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:Young Communist League (Cuba)[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. No problem with recreating when there is more content. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only 2 articles and little chance of expansion. Tim! (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does it have a little chance of expansion??? It is one of the most important organizations in present-day Cuba! strange... --TIAYN (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - seems a bit premature at the moment. The Communist Party of Cuba is significant enough to have its own category, but the Young Communist League doesn't need one until we have more articles about it. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is difficult one. Most of the members will be NN as yet, but I suspect there may well be room for expansion in some way. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The organization was founded in 1965, so I do not see that it is unlikely its members have gained notability. The article on the head of the organization suggests that we have articles on some of its heads who have not yet been categorized as having been such. It does appear the category could grow to 5 if we wanted to include those heads, and were able to put sourced statements in their articles that they served as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, UJC is a major institution in Cuba, and there are lots of potential articles about the organization (not only about individual members). Also, the people in the UJC leadership (past and present) are definitely notable people in their own right. --Soman (talk) 02:03, 11 July 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:Images of Stone Temple Pilots[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: once the images are transferred to commons, the category may be deleted. But CFD is not the place to request or compel users to transfer images to commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Transfer to Commons and delete category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 29 May 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:Images of Scott Weiland[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: File:Weiland happy.jpg is subject to copyright and cannot be transferred to commons, but it could be placed in a different category for album covers, I suppose. If the category is ever empty as a result of transfers to commons and/or transfers to album cover categories, it may be deleted. But CFD is not the place to request or compel users to transfer images to commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Transfer to Commons and delete category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 29 May 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:Images of Robert DeLeo[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: once the images are transferred to commons, the category may be deleted. But CFD is not the place to request or compel users to transfer images to commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Transfer to Commons and delete category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 29 May 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:Images of Eric Kretz[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: once the images are transferred to commons, the category may be deleted. But CFD is not the place to request or compel users to transfer images to commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Transfer to Commons and delete category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 29 May 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:Magazine writers[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: withdrawn (no consensus to delete in any case). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are only 7 people in the American category, and only 60 in the broader category. I don't think writers-by-place-their-writing-appeared is much use beyond newspapers. We have essayists (who publish in magazines, journals, and books), columnists (who publish in newspapers and magazines), poets (who publish in magazines, newspapers, books, and journals), and journalists (who publish in magazines, newspapers, and blogs) - all of these people have written in magazines, but I don't think this makes it defining for them.
As such "magazine writer", even though this is something people obviously do, is not IMHO itself DEFINING - what is more DEFINING is what sort of thing they wrote - was it a poem, a short story, an essay, a column, a piece of investigative journalist, etc. As such, I think this category should be merged to American writers (writers can be deleted outright), to be diffused properly at a later date. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - this is a kind of 'performers by performance' category, which are usually discouraged. Editing or publishing a magazine may be a defining characteristic, but writing in one usually is not, as most magazines have many writers. As Obi-Wan says, the better categorisation of writers is by the existing categories for their type of writing, rather than by where they've been published. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT merge as per nom - Category:Writers is a container category that should only contain sub-cats. I agree the existing cats are little use, but someone needs to go through the enties & categorize individually - the ones I looked at were mostly already adequately categorized. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I will change the nomination accordingly. It is now to delete Magazine writers, and then merge the 7 Americans up (Category:American writers isn't a container right now, so they may as well go there while waiting for further diffusion). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have newspaper writers categories, it makes sense to have this category. Just because it is not largely developed does not mean we should get rid of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Now that the category is properly populated with 49 magazine writers and this category fits into the existing category structure and it not being there would leave a hole in the category structure. Hmains (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment For one, we don't have a newspaper writers category, we have a fully developed tree of newspaper editors, publishers, journalists by newspaper. A newspaper is almost always journalism - reporting - whereas a magazine can be anything - there's a huge variety - that's why when people describe someone who writes for a newspaper that is defining, but someone who writes for a magazine is much more often described as an essayist, a columnist, etc. Check the bios, you will see - this is rare in the ones I looked at. Yes, they may have written a few articles for a magazine, but I don't see it. Magazine editors or publishers I could see being defining, but not magazine writers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seems a very natural category for writers who work in the magazine industry. I moved the category from Category:Magazines to Category:Magazine people where we see similicar categories for editors, illustrators etc. Tim! (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full time magazine writers are journalists, and should be categorized accordingly. This seems to be mostly used for people better known for something else who write the odd magazine piece. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as nom I hadn't seen the whole broader magazine people tree which Tim helpfully linked to - when I looked at it is just seemed to be floating, but it was actually just isolated from a broader tree of magazine-stuff. Now that that is fixed, I withdraw this nomination, but others have already voted so not sure what to do here. Perhaps others could take a look at the category in the new structure and reconsider their !votes? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment also there actually is Category:Newspaper writers and has been since 2010 Hmains (talk) 02:52, 31 May 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:Final single released in lifetime[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) 01:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Being an artist's final single doesn't seem to be a definining characteristic of these songs, plus what is the criteria? The Michael Jackson song is not listed as a single and the Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse songs have subsequent singles in their infobox chronologies. Also see Cfd for Category:Final albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. sounds about right when looking at the Final album category deletion. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 00:29, 29 May 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_May_29&oldid=1138398445"