Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12[edit]

Jewish poker players[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 00:58, 20 October 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:Alias (TV series) episodes[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) 23:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Alias (TV series) seasons. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:13, 12 October 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:Croatia under-16 international footballers[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 all to Category:Croatia youth international footballers. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Under-16 players are never automatically notable. There isn't even an article on Croatia national under-16 football team. Standard consensus is to only have the full internationals in a category, and the Under-21s in another, and no others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also nominating the following, for basically the same reason:
The team in croatian wiki [1]. Xaris333 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, But why the u19, u17 and u20? We have articles about that teams. Croatia national under-20 football team, Croatia national under-19 football team, Croatia national under-17 football team. Xaris333 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because those players are never automatically notable, and they're minor levels; we don't have the categories for other countries, for those reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have. For example Category:Association football players by under-19 national team. Category:Association football players by under-17 national team] Xaris333 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not??? Xaris333 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For exactly the same reason these shouldn't. Being an under-17 or whatever age group player is not a defining characteristic; and there is no automatic notability generated by it either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These categories included the notable players that played with the teams. Why not to have them? Xaris333 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd missed those particular categories. If I'd spotted them somewhere, I'd have suggested that merge! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Mentoz; same goes for every other country as well. Three categories - senior international, under-21 (or u20 in South America) youth, and other 'youth' - are sufficient. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all -- I would have said delete, but other contributors (above) assure me that is not right. I would have expected that most youth footballers did not regularly play for their club's first team and so failed to qualify as notable. If they played for a national youth team and subsequently became full professionals, I would not expect them to remain in a youth category, becasue they once played at that level. I suspect that this is the source of the mischief here. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that these categories can stay. Especially, under 19 and under 17. Xaris333 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why to have for u21 and not for u19? Xaris333 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's because U21 is the most senior youth team (excusing U23 that plays in Olympics only), and it makes sense to have a category for them - and them alone. GiantSnowman 14:54, 17 October 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 West Baton Parish, Louisiana[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. Since it was speedy-tagged G7 and empty, I deleted it as a C1. Miniapolis 14:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspelling of Category:Populated places in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. It is also an unnecessary level of categorization, since this and its only subcategory are both listed under Category:Towns in Louisiana by parish. Kennethaw88 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category is now empty. Kennethaw88 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom I created this category by accident; it serves no purpose; I have now removed the contents and category links. Hmains (talk) 05:11, 13 October 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:Alice Munro[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. I have added see-also links between the sub-cats for works and adaptations, which should prove sufficient for navigation. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Only includes the main page, a page about the bookstore that was founded by the subject and then a subcategory of their work. The Works by Alice Munro should remain as the main category. Mike (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Alice Munro just received the Nobel Prize for Literature this Week. I think we should leave the umbrella category to include her works, and other articles she may be connected to. Other Nobel winners have movie adaptations, and places they have a significant relation to. It's too early to delete at this point. Wait and see if the category isn't filled, but give the community a chance to decide before nominating again. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't a lot of this violate WP:CRYSTAL, and in a fairly ironic way? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL would be if I said I knew it would be definitely filled in the future. Suggesting the community discuss things before deletion shouldn't be controversial. It's not a dangerously misleading or inaccurate category, so there seems little need to avoid seeking consensus on the talk page. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? What is CfD, if not for the community discussing things? Also, doesn't the latter part of your argument fail WP:NOHARM? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Munro does not pass the high hurdle for an eponymous category. There are lots of other winners of the nobel prize for literature who do not have such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: Would you please elaborate:
    Which "high hurdle" are you talking about?
    Is there a wiki-policy somewhere defining this "high hurdle"?
    Or is it an undocumented rule that only wiki-insiders are privy to?
    Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant material is at WP:OC#EPONYMOUS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every writer needs an eponymous category — indeed, the rule for the creation of one is that the category is navigationally useful by virtue of the fact that we have a substantial volume related content about the writer to justify it. As it stands, however, all we have here is two articles (one of which is the eponym herself) and two subcategories (both of which consist exclusively of content that Alice Munro's main article already directly links to, and one of which should be a subcategory of the other one rather than a subcategory of the writer anyway.) Which means that it's not navigationally necessary. Category:Leonard Cohen, on the other hand, is a good example of where it is useful, if you look at the sheer volume of content that it contains. The rule, again, is "volume of related content that actually exists", not "has won X award", and Munro does not have the necessary volume of related content to warrant it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are (as of the moment of this writing) a total of 24 articles linked to this category and its subcategories. I think that's more than sufficient to warrant a category. PKT(alk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are currently 1,720 eponymous entries in Category:Wikipedia categories named after people by nationality alone. Has anyone checked to see if they all follow the "high hurdle" (whatever it is)? Are we going to delete those that don't one by one? There are currently 149 eponymous entries in Category:Wikipedia categories named after women. Two have already been deleted a couple of days ago, and two will most likely follow in short order.
    The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse and quickly find sets of pages. But if the category landscape keeps changing at this pace, this lofty goal will never be achieved. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other content may exist which isn't in accordance with Wikipedia policy on these matters does not create a permanent policy exemption; it means you need to find the violating content and delete it. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not enough content in head to justify eponcat. The existence of hundreds of other epon cats which may not pass the bar is no reason to keep this one; indeed it may be that a broader purge of eponcats is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too small for an eponymous category. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is not enough content outside of the Works by and Films based on subcategories to justify an eponymous category. The fact that there are other poorly populated eponymous categories, and the possibility that additional content might be created in the future, are not good reasons to retain this category. The category can be recreated if or when this additional content exists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing approaching the volume and complexity here that warrants an eponymous category. Categories are not established for people based on whether they won an award so arguments citing her Nobel win are irrelevant. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently now larger than when nominated 2 months ago. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It still includes only "the main page, a page about the bookstore that was founded by the subject and then a subcategory of their work." The only item that might be extra is the 'Films based on works by...' subcategory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its just not big enough for its own category. Beerest 2 talk 19:19, 8 December 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:Helvetia Cup[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: uperge to both parents. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category previously contained Helvetia Cup, 2005 Helvetia Cup and 2007 Helvetia Cup. I've redirected the two season-articles to the parent article as non-notable WP:SPINOFFs, but regardless of that we shouldn't have a eponymous categories with only three articles. The page(s) in this category should instead be upmerged to the parent categories. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with both: The redirects are not right and the deletion of the category is not correct, too. As European team championships for all but the six best teams in Europe clearly relevant including the articles by year. Keep. --Florentyna (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While we have articles on the biannual competitions, we need a category for them. They are not good articles, due to the number of redlinks, but that is an issue for improvement. If the biannual articles should not exist, they should be subject to an AFD. If that empties this category, except the main article, then upmerge would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even with the two articles about the 2005 and 2007 competitions, I don't see a need for an eponymous category at this time. The two competitions are clearly linked from the main article, and they in turn prominently link to the main article. The category can be recreated if/when more content exists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the whole, per BF. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 7 December 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.

English pope(s)[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is grammatically incorrect: it should say "English pope". Over-categorisation and Small. Very unlikely that the English will produce another pope any time soon. Even two would still be too small. Frankly, the first did enough damage, but that's a different story. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the presedent set in this discussion from March 2013 about Category:Argentine popes. You also have this discussion from June 2009, where all of those categories where up discussion. As this category is a part of an established category-tree, we can keep it even it has only one member. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it is not grammatically incorrect. Categories are pluralized. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussions, such as this one and this one. (List categories are pluralised even if there is just 1 member.) Oculi (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mixture of WP:CRYSTAL violations and some utterly irrelevant bits in the nomination statement; prior precedent allows for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we can keep the Polish popes and the Dutch popes and the Argentine popes cats, we can keep this one. As long as it is worth splitting popes by nationality at all, we should keep this category. We always use the plural in categories like this. See, for example Category:Zimbabwean general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A category that is equally full with just one, although maybe slightly more likely to grow (there are about 100 general authorities at any given time, but Category:Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not split by nationality, but we are comparing about 260 articles to 16 articles, and all presidents of the LDS Church were nationals of the US, even John Taylor born in Britain eventually achieved US citizenship and served for a time as speaker of the Utah Territorial legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes, there has only been one, but the role is so notable that we ought to have it. The alternative would be to merge it and the Dutch, Argentine and Polish categories into a non-Italian one. Precedent does not support that. The LDS cases do not help here. Though the LDS have a different use for "bishop", the postion cited is presumably equivalent to that of an Anglican or RC bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, probably a better analogy is to cardinals. Roman Catholic bishops are responsible for a specific geographical area. Edward Dube, the one person in the category I mentioned above, as a general authority has authority over the whole church. True, he is also a counselor in the Africa West Area Presidency (which covers essentially from Nigeria to Liberia along the coast, as well as overseeing a few scattered people in Mali and a few other inland countries), but as a member of the first quorum of the 70 he has oversight over the whole church, thus his speaking at general conference just over a week ago. Thus this is similar to how we have Category:Zambian cardinals, which also only has one entry. When the episcopal diocese of Utah has 6,000 members but the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City has 150,000 members, the idea that Catholic and Anglican bishops are equivalent needs to be not over stated. Additionally, in the example of Dube his current assignment to the Africa West Area is less permanent than his position as a general authority. Carlos Amabado for example has been assigned to Chile, Central America and a few other areas over the time he has been a general authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 14 October 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.

Years in Thailand[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 as most of the other discussions. Please note that to do these renames, the inline templates need to be updated by me manually. So some of these will need to wait since I'm done for the day. If I don't get them done in 24 hours, leave me a note. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of nomination
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Thailand was called Siam before 1939 Tim! (talk) 08:56, 12

October 2013 (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:Unsolved murders in the United States[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Murder is pronounced by a court of law. Hence if unresolved no such pronouncement will have been made. Mootros (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question does US law operate similarly to other nations in which a death can be declared to be a murder by a coroner's court, but remain unsolved as to who the perpetrator was? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice subtle point! In England and Wales, such a pronouncement would be called unlawful killing. This would be a form of "solved" as it is a legal verdict, even if no individual was found guilty. However, perusing this cat, I suspect that 99% of the article would not be related to this. The situation in the US is even more complex, as coroners are not judicial officer; the closest would be quasi-judicial appointments in some states, where as in others they are "merely" medical practitioners. Hence a "pronouncement" by a coroner in the US might legally be seen as either suspicion or evidence, but not (unlike in England) as a verdict as such. Mootros (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall, the coroner may rule that the manner of a death is a homicide. The legal system takes that and the cause of death and determines that it was a murder. Rules vary by state. Coroners generally just determine the cause and manner of death and don't get involved in determining if there was a crime (murder). Our best starting link is probably this. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Unsolved murders" is, by default, a BLP violation. An "unsolved murder" can turn out to be an assisted suicide, manslaughter, accidental death, or anything like that. Therefore, the proposed category name makes more sense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename instead to Category:Unsolved suspicious deaths in the United States. The UK practice used to be that the coroner's jury would commit the suspected murderer for trial, but we have abandoned grand juries and juries in most civil cases. The result was that the press was implying that people had been convicted by a jury, when the jury had only decided to indict them. This was seen to be prejudicing fair trials. The coroner's hearing now usually follows the murder trial, which means that it is often long delayed (which is bad). The difficult cases are ones where the prosecution authorities thought it was a lawful homicide, but the coroner's jury disagrees. The procedure on this will vary a lot from country to country. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "suspicious" as raised by Peterkingiron above leads to the "by whom" no doubt, Elvis' and JFK's deaths are suspicious to some; as was Liberace's for some time, and Anna Nicole Smith's, etc. And of course, we're presuming deaths in some disappearances: Jimmy Hoffa? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also split out the unidentified killers from the unsolved deaths. Zodiac's victims were really murdered, but we don't know who Zodiac is/was; kind of a different sort of article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absolutely no problem with this sensible idea: Category:Unsolved suspicious deaths in the United States Mootros (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And which one of the 5 manners of death listed here does this match? If the answer is none, then it is a subjective category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if it needs to match this unreferenced list. Almost none of the articles in this categories state any coroner reports, hence ascribing to any possible categories would not be right without such cited report. However we have a lot of evidence for almost all articles that the death is unsolved and suspicious. Mootros (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking over the contents, most articles say the subject was murdered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above; also, I do not think that we should single out the American category while leaving the rest of Category:Unsolved murders. The category may need to be pruned a bit, to remove articles about individuals and leave articles about murders and/or murderous acts (e.g., Las Cruces Bowling Alley massacre), but I do not think that renaming will solve the problem that was identified. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose to retain the match with the parent category Category:Unsolved murders and to match all the siblings of this category found therein. The US does not uniquely lack unsolved murders. Hmains (talk) 00:51, 30 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_October_12&oldid=1138398624"