Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Rebbie Jackson[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small. Eponymous categories are only needed if there's loads of content that needs to be categorized. This only has one article and two subcategories. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and color me surprised that Rebbie Jackson has more than one notable song. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Minimal content that doesn't warrant an eponymous category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:17, 12 November 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:Underground countries[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. (NAC)Armbrust The Homunculus 03:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no underground countries; these will exist only in fiction; as such, there is no need for this parent. The underground countries in fiction child can fit perfectly within the "fictional countries" parent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need this category until a real such thing is created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sole content - a category for fictional ones is adequately categorized. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 7 November 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:Countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing countries by what oceans/seas they border is not good categorization as (1) a country could be in many such categories (e.g. France could be in at least 4 such categories even without its overseas territories), (2) we don't (for good reasons) have other "bordering" categories (countries-bordering-country, seas-bordering country etc), (3) country categories (e.g. Category:United States) get put under these categories (so for example Death Valley is categorized under Category:Atlantic Ocean which is incorrect per WP:SUBCAT). This sort of thing is better covered by a list - i.e. Atlantic_Ocean#Bordering_countries_and_territories. Note: This discussion covers just the Atlantic category, but depending on the outcome the rest of Category:Countries bordering water bodies could be CFDed. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as well as the rest of Category:Countries bordering water bodies based on outcome here - we don't need this scheme, and it's generally not defining for the country (or at least, if it is defining, it is just as defining as which countries this country borders on - and I don't think we should create Category:countries which border on Russia and Category:Countries which border on China. These sorts of things are better handled as lists, as noted by the nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not really a defining category of countires. Much better as a list than a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - this is a non-defining categorisation scheme. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt if lists are better, then the lists must be created first prior to any deletion and loss of the information content of which countries border which water body. Should be standalone lists, not lists embedded in other articles. Hmains (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, if the decision is to listify (which I'm fine with), the closing admin will leave the category lying around until someone listifies it. However, I'm not sure why you think this needs to be a separate list - why couldn't this go in Atlantic Ocean for example? see Atlantic_Ocean#Bordering_countries_and_territories where such a list already exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 10 November 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:People from Greater Sacramento[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: rename to Category:People from the Sacramento metropolitan area. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has no entries just subcategories. The subcategories already link to the category Sacramento metropolitan area. This category is redundant.

Note- I did remove the one people article(Dick Lotz) that linked here. After some searching, I found the proper location category he belonged in, People from El Dorado County, California. ...William 15:07, 6 November 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:People from Prosperity, South Carolina[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with 4 entries, one of which I'll be prodding. ...William 13:25, 6 November 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:Torpedo bombers[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, by weight of argument. The consensus at the relevant WikiProject WP:AIR/C gives no support to these categories. Many of these aircraft were used in multiple roles. The existing list of torpedo bombers and the text of the page interceptor aircraft suffice, and are more useful. Here is a link to the changes in case these are useful to check that the lists are appropriately complete. This closure is without prejudice to creating a separate list of interceptors. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a sort of generic categorisation that is not used for aircraft; the long-accepted and standardized category structure for aircraft is "(Country) (Role) (Decade)". In this case, the aircraft in this category are already appropriately categorised as "Foo attack aircraft xxxx-xxxx" or "Foo bomber aircraft xxxx-xxxx" depending on size; "torpedo bomber" was a role very few aircraft had exclusively a torpedoing role, and this category is also acting as a catch-all for aircraft that happened to carry torpedoes such as the Martin AM Mauler, which is never described as a "torpedo bomber" in sources. As such, I believe that this category should be deleted; as its contents are already appropriately categorised, no merge is needed. Added is Category:Interceptor aircraft, which has the same root issue; the line between "interceptor" and "fighter" is also a blurry one at times, and all "interceptors" are in fact "fighter aircraft", so it is also WP:OC. List of torpedo bombers and List of interceptors, however, might well be appropriate to create. The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I just discovered that Category:Torpedo bombers was one I actually created myself way back when using my original, now legit-alt, account. Ugh, "if I knew now what I knew then..." - The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's best (mainly to avoid complexity in categorization) to categorize (military) aircraft by broad types (fighter, bomber, transport etc) combined with country/decade rather than to try to categorize by (all the) the specific roles that a particular aircraft type performed. If a list of all the aircraft types that have been used in a particular role is needed then it should be a list. DexDor (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The real world categorizes aircraft based on these descriptions of their function, as seen in such books as U. S. Navy Dive and Torpedo Bombers of World War II, Ship-Busters: British Torpedo-Bombers in World War II and Attack and Interceptor Jets: 300 of the World's Greatest Aircraft, as well as dozens of episodes of programs aired on cable television channels dedicated to the subject. George H. W. Bush would probably be suprised to discover that he wasn't a torpedo bomber pilot and that his TBM Avenger was not a torpedo bomber, or at least couldn't be categorized that way (see this source, among hundreds of others). The purpose of the category system is to serve as an aid to navigation for users of this encyclopedia, not as a means for anal-retentive sorts to group articles into pigeonholes that fit their sense (and often only their sense) of how articles must be organized. This discussion here is a perfect example of how the CfD process far too often loses all sight of this purpose in an attempt to arbitrarily shoehorn articles into a system that only harms navigation for the very people who would benefit most from effective, real-world grouping schemes such as Category:Torpedo bombers and Category:Interceptor aircraft. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from casting aspersions on other editors' motivations. Thank you. If this category was just for torpedo bombers, then it would be just fine. But it's not, it's aircraft that have carried torpedoes; these are not the same, but the boundary is murky enough to make this an unsuitable categorisation. The TBF Avenger was also a conventional bomber, to use your example. And "interceptor" is wholly redundant to "fighters", as normal fighters can and do perform interceptions. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alansohn, That aircraft types have been grouped in a particular way outside WP (e.g. in a book title) does not always mean that WP should have a corresponding category - otherwise we would have, for example, (largely overlapping) categories specifically for heavy bombers, strategic bombers, long-range bombers, nuclear bombers ... DexDor (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That other crap exists and might be appropriate for categorization schemes is never an effective argument for deletion. Does the real world use the term "torpedo bomber" to describe a specific grouping of aircraft and will people search for such planes in this manner? Or are you only willing to allow people to search by country, type and decade, an arbitrary scheme that serves no one? Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole of categorization is an arbitrary scheme (that attempts to balance simplicity/consistency versus detail). WP:AIR/C#Role says "Role categories are intentionally quite broad - the danger of over-precision would be the creation of multiple, closely-related categories with only very hazy (or semantic) borders between them.". If you disagree with that please discuss on its talk page. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If people are searching for torpedo bombers, they'll find List of torpedo bombers, and Bob's your uncle. There is an extremely long-standing consenus about how aircraft are categorised. And this falls, rather distinctively and conclusively, outside that consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "no consensus" on experimental aircraft demonstrates that there is no consensus on this topic, nor is there any evidence that any old consensus ever existed. Neither the defunct consensus nor Uncle Bob have any relevance when when he have dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that demonstrate the real world use of the term. WP:CLN, a very real guideline, demonstrates that categories and lists are designed to co-exist and serve as mutually beneficial aids to navigation, so the existence of a list and the destruction of the corresponding category only harms navigation. The very real danger of deleting such categories is that readers don't benefit from an arbitrary scheme that shoehorns all aircraft into overbroad categories based on characteristics that don't aid anyone who wants to see some very well-defined grouping of planes. Alansohn (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • @A, Please stop repeating arguments (e.g. "sources ... demonstrate the real world use of the term") where it's already been explained why that's not relevant to this discussion. If RW sources didn't use the term then that would be good reason to question whether its use was appropriate in WP, but the reverse doesn't apply (i.e. we don't need to have a WP category corresponding to every term that has ever been used). If you wish to propose an adjustment to the scheme of (what may be) overbroad categories (e.g. by using narrower roles in country-role-decade categories) or by creating a separate categorization scheme for aircraft alongside the current country-(broad)role-decade categories then please discuss it on the appropriate talk page. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              The statment "nor is there any evidence that any old consensus ever existed" indicates that this discussion can go nowhere, so I will no longer be participating in it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The use of terms and categorization schemes from the real world as documented and supported in a wide range of reliable and verifiable sources is a bedrock principal of Wikipedia. I have neither an interest in nor an obligation to go about "creating a separate categorization scheme for aircraft alongside the current country-(broad)role-decade categories" as demanded. There are categories here that already exist and I have gone beyond the usual knee-jerk keeps and deletes to refer to specific sources as an argument for retention. The insistence that such sources demonstrating this real-world use can be ignored demonstrates that we are failing here in building an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Alansohn: there are many many attributes for which reliable sources exist. However, as DexDor has pointed out above in different words, a basis in reliable sources is a necessary condition for any category, but it is not a sufficient condition.
                There are many many well-documented attributes which topics are not categorised, for a variety of reasons: e.g. because they are opinion-based, ARBITRARY|arbitrary, based on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality (other than in defined circumstances), or subjective. Additionally, we cannot categorise topics on every possible sourced attribute which avoids the standard exclusions in WP:OCAT; that would lead to massive category clutter. Some editorial judgement is needed in prioritising and grouping attributes, to allow a consistent set of non-overlapping categories, and you appear to be fundamentally opposed to the long-standing consensus on this basic approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the torpedo category. Merge interceptors with fighters, unless some one can produce a clear boundary between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nominator. Since few aircraft had an exclusive role as torpedo bombers, this sort of categorisation just creates clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 18 November 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:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations[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: listify, than delete. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING permanent defining characteristic of these locales. this would work as a list. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_20#Populated_places_in_the_United_States_with_African_American_majority_populations and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 5#Category:UK locations with ethnic minority-majority populations Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Like other demographic factors, the ethnic mix of an area fluctuates, and can change radically in the space of only a few decades. So it is not a permanent defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete Although the list needs to be made time sensitive. Many of these places this applies for in 2010 but does not apply for in 2000. Also, technically, no such places really exist on the census, since the census only tracks Hispanic and not Hispanic, no other ethnicities, and Hispanics can be of any race. That said, it is realistically how a place that has a population that is 40% Hispanic, 20% non-Hispanic white and 20% non-Hispanic black would be though of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- per African-American precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 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:Spacecraft which reentered in 2013[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 is. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To my ear this just seems wrong. Not sure how correct the current name is, but it might be OK in some versions of English. If this passes, the rest of the series can be changed at speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think that either would be right. I might prefer the latter (as might nom), but I am not sure that our preference is enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - "which" is a perfectly cromulent construction, no need for change for the sake of change. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both per Jerry Pepsi and due to the fact that "nominate one and then speedy the rest" nominations (something that I admit I have done myself in the past, to my shame) strike me as a way to "end-around" CfD, and even if (as is almost certainly the case in almost all cases) it's done in good faith, it's not how the system works. If they're speediable, speedy them, if not, the entire tree needs to come to CfD for discussion, as otherwise people who weren't watching the one category nominated, and therefore missed the discussion, will be caught out when suddenly ones they are watching are unexpectedly speedied. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:08, 10 November 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_November_6&oldid=1138398573"