Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15[edit]

Category:Harveian Orations[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) 22:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Category:Harveian Orators

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another small category for a lecture series and one for its lecturers, who are not defined by having given it, also implicates WP:OC#PERF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate Category:Harveian Orators with Harveian Oration as main article. I strongly suspect that being asked to give the lecture is a mark of distinction, in an area (unlike acting) where we are unlikely to get a large number of performance categories (and strictly it is one). That article contains a list. A high proportion of the orators have articles (perhaps half). Delete the orations: they are apparently published as books (perhaps pamphlets), but we appear to have no articles on individual orations. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people regularly work as various types of scientists and other academics, that is how we categorize them, not by being asked to give a one time lecture. Also, I highly suspect many of these people will actually have been asked to give multiple lectures on this level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 21 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:Goulstonian lectures[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) 22:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Category:Goulstonian lecturers

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category for the series itself is small and unlikely to expand. The category for the lecturers is overcategorization by performance and not defining of the people giving it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the one article here is the same one as in the above nomination makes this a really unneeded category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- The main article is Goulstonian Lectures, which contains a list of the lecturers, many of whom are distinguished enough to have articles, though not as many as the Harveian orations above. This is not an area where we are likely to get large numbers of performance categories for an individual (unlike actors and TV presenters).
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:Presenters of lecture series[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) 22:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Category:Gifford Lecturers; Category:Huizinga Lecturers; Category:Massey Lecturers; Category:Presenters of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. As with the Reith series nominated below, presenting one of these lectures is not defining of the lecturer and is also overcategorization of performer by performance. Lists exist within the articles on the lecture series themselves. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These people were notable as historians, poets, etc. and were asked to give the lecture as such. Giving the lecture is not a notable or defining part of their history, it is a one time presentation, not a long-standing occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the last two which seem to be primarily media events, where the lecturers is already a distinguished person, so that being invited to give the lecture(s) is more like an award. Conversely, the Gifford and Huizinga series seem to be primarily academic events, which is why I have voted to keep and populate the two series in noms above. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 21 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:Novels about the media[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: do not delete, almost by default, since no deletion rationale was provided. This is without prejudice to a new nomination that provides a rationale for deletion or merging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found doing August cleanup and I did not find the old discussion. So relisting from the start. No opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of any deletion rationale being offered and failure to address why this category was singled out from all of the "Novels about" categories (including this category's several sub-categories). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Novels by topic. The content is more disparate than the name implies. Deletion should not be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 21 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:Jonathan Nolan[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 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DELETE: This young man, however talented, does not have the quantitative or qualitative accomplishments to merit his own category, as born out by the nearly empty subcategories, which have no more than one entry each. When he has more accomplishments to his name then the category can be recreated without prejudice. Quis separabit? 19:22, 15 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:Soccer Bowl (NASL Championship)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming should not be done as this category encompasses all championship games of the North American Soccer League, which have had several names over the years from NASL Final to Soccer Bowl (the main article of this subject further explains the history in detail). NYCWikiKid (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your position since these were won under the old name and that name should be used. However there is a tendency in these discussions to rename these to follow the current name. My opinion is that we can keep the categories with the old names as children of the current league name category. This makes it clear what really happened and yet we can have all of these in one holding pen. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi VW. Thanks for the support. I really do appreciate it and definitely understand what you mean. Just to put things into perspective, the previous and current name is the NASL Championship. Soccer Bowl is the name used as the title of the championship game since 1975. However, the championship has existed since 1967, under various names. To only mention Soccer Bowl would imply that only the titles won under the name Soccer Bowl would be included. Keeping it under the current name maintains consistency with the years of the league and reduces redundancy of having to create subcategories. NYCWikiKid (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, that's not how we categorise things. We categorise under the present name, period; also, the (parens) is used for disambiguation - it would only be appropriate here if there were other Soccer Bowls that this needed to be distinguished from. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per standard practice and to avoid misuse of (disambiguation). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as speedy nominator. Categorizing by former names is overcategorization. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not as nom -- In the light of the discussion, I wonder whether the target for both should not be Category:NASL Championship, with Category:Soccer Bowl as a cat-redirect to that. Policy in a number of areas (country, college, etc.) changes its name, we do not have a separate category for the old name. Hence, the soccer bowl articles should be in the category for the same competition under its present name. The current target is a redirect, but I do not think its makes sufficiently clear what the target should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - unneccessary disambiguation. GiantSnowman 10:22, 24 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:Draco Rosa[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. At the time of the closure the category had 4 subcategories, 3 articles and 1 template. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And that is a reason to delete, "too little content"? If so, how do you propose that the articles on the artist, his albums and his songs are connected category-wise? And what is the threshold? If "Draco Rosa discography" is created and added, would that be enough? Or a separate subcategory "Songs written by Draco Rosa" is added (he has co-written several of Ricky Martin's)? YLSS (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Three subcategories, a main article and one or two others with a footer template would probably suffice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 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:People who have given the BBC's Reith Lectures[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 03:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Presenters of lecture series suggests "Reith Lecturers" as a more natural way of phrasing this. The phrase "Reith Lecturer" is used in the Reith Lectures article and other sources. McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - it is rather a mouthful but a useful category Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not defining of the subjects, also per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose "Reith lecturer" isn't an ongoing role (even as the RI Christmas lectures might be) it's a one-off for one lecture. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—the Reith Lecturers are not defined by delivering the annual lectures. The opening sentence of the article Reith Lectures says: "The Reith Lectures is a series of annual radio lectures given by leading figures of the day" (italics added). This information is much better presented in a list, which is exactly what the article does. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not persuaded that this category falls under WP:OC#PERF. Many of the the Reith Lecturers are not people who routinely do lectures, so they are not performers.
    However, Beeswaxcandle is right that giving these lectures is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the lecturers. Most of them are notable for many other things, and while the Reith lectures are a very prestigious occasion, the lecturers have many other more important attributes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically an award that is given by giving one lecture. That is not a defining trait to the person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete akin to givers of commencement addresses, whether peformers by performance or otherwise non-defining, it ought to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This a media event for the public, not an academic lecture series. The lecturer is chosen because they are already distinguished. My rationale is explained on noms above. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 21 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:A Day to Remember webisodes[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 03:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains redirects, not useful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, if the videos themselves are not notable enough for anything more than redirects then those redirects do not require categorization. Categories require context on articles; I have categorized a few redirects myself and certainly see the value in doing so, but this assumes that 1) the topics in question are mentioned, not merely cited, in the target article and 2) other items in the category are deserving of and have articles of their own, again with the categories justified in the article. This fails at least the last of those two conditions. LazyBastardGuy 03:11, 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:Works by Bette Midler[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. The two subcategories are already in Category:Bette Midler. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge. Unnecessary--albums and songs subcats are interlinked. This is standard for subcats. of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 15 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:Dance competitions[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Content moved to a category with less ambiguous (less duplicate) title
That's a matter of cleanup: there is already a general (non TV) dance competition category where those items belong to -Loginnigol 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What category? Why aren't you cleaning up after yourself? Why have you emptied a category without discussion and tried to delete it at CFD and MFD? (The erroneous MFD nomination attracted my attention to your actions.) Why can't you sign properly? BencherliteTalk 08:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is Category:Competitive dance (which prompted me to make the move in the first place - and it's not true to say that there was no discussion - there was one on the talk page of the category itself). And as to the cleaning up - I just did. Those articles you mentioned have been updated. I'm checking if there are more leftovers. -Loginnigol 09:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion at the category talk page? Hah! Someone left a question five years ago. You came along and acted, then replied to the question. That's not a proper discussion about deleting / renaming the category by any stretch of the imagination. Discussion about emptying and deleting categories takes places before the event at CFD; you shouldn't present CFD with a fait accompli, which is what you have done. Incidentally, to link to a category you add a colon between the brackets and the word "category" like so: [[:Category:Competitive dance]] produces Category:Competitive dance. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's another matter. The situation was that there were two identical categories ("dance competitions" and "competitive dance") and articles were randomly spread to both. I dealt with that. I separated the TV shows from the other competitions. -Loginnigol (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A topic category and a list category are completely different. See eg Category:Opera (topic) and Category:Operas (list). Oculi (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned articles about dance competitions to Category:Dance competitions from the more general Category:Competitive dance, restored the parent categories and added correct subcats. The structure is fine: articles about competitive dance but not about a specific dance competition go in Category:Competitive dance, articles about a specific competition go in Category:Dance competitions or a more specific subcat. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tidying up, Oculi. I think that the category structure as it now is should be kept, so I have altered my initial comment accordingly. BencherliteTalk 12:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Topic cat versus list cat versus subcat - OK, got it Oculi. So then I hereby withdraw my nomination. -Loginnigol (talk) 17:55, 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:Billiard Congress of America[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) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is not needed for the lead article, a couple of redirects and the hall of fame sub-category (which is itself dubious). I boldly added the lead article to the parent categories so there's no need for a merger. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it, personally. Upon seeing this nomination I looked at the category to see if an upmerging would make sense, but it doesn't. I'd say just to leave this one as it is. I also don't see how the sub-category is "dubious"; plenty of subcategories like it exist (and I am aware of guidelines on the matter), it seems like it would be a very notable point in the players' careers so I think it should remain. I am not very knowledgeable on billiards or the like, I am only speaking from my personal experience on Wikipedia and from what I know of how Wikipedia works. LazyBastardGuy 03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The redirects themselves also have at least two other categories apiece; possibly, when more can be said on either subject, they can have their own full articles. It's kind of a way of saying, "Well, if there were an article here, this is how we'd classify it." I think they're important enough that they should remain categorized, even if it ultimately means all three entries in the category (the article plus two redirects to it) just lead to the same place. LazyBastardGuy 01:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense to categorize, for instance, the expo redirect as a trade show. It doesn't make sense to categorize it with two other entries that will simply lead the reader in a circle back to itself. I called the HoF category "dubious" based on my perception from reading the main article that it's a non-defining award given by a trade association. I will acknowledge not being expert on the subject and regardless, the sub-category (which is properly categorized additionally) isn't nominated. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need a category for an article and two redirects to that article. We probably should delete the awards sub-cat, but that is a separate issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To pre-empt that inevitable (from where I'm standing) CfD: Why would we do that? What makes that category any less significant than other awards categories? I don't understand when an award is "non-defining" (in the reply to my addendum by Jerry); is it not significant in its own right? I want people to think about this before bringing it to CfD, so that's why I'm addressing it now. This CfD really isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. Normally I would agree, a category of redirects doesn't hold water, but I've seen no compelling evidence that the redirects can't someday be articles, and especially as they have other categories appended to them I say to keep the category. And the sub-category, even if it's more insignificant and more of a footnote in billiards history than anything. LazyBastardGuy 03:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:OC#SMALL: It seems unlikely that there ever will be a significant number of articles related to the BCA. If there is at some future time a large expansion of such articles that category can be recreated but there simply isn't any need for it now. How many other categories are on a redirect isn't relevant to the discussion of any one of them.
  • As for the HoF sub-cat, see WP:OC#AWARD. Being named to a hall of fame by a trade group does not to me call out as being the sort of prestigious award contemplated by that guideline. But again, it's not part of this nomination so its fate is not relevant. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No substantive content, except the main article and an AWARD category that ought to be listified (probably in that artifcle) and then deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 21 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:Aragonese Way[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 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? If needed, navigation would be better accomplished by list in the main article showing the points along the route. Note that some of the article don't mention this, instead only locating the building along the Way of Saint James. If Category:Way of St. James is kept or renamed, another option here would be a selective upmerge to whatever is left after that deletion discussion is closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_15&oldid=1138398649"