Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[edit]

Category:Books about Jack the Ripper[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very straightforward: These are all Non-fiction books, no novels included. The category was already parented in the (non-fiction) History category tree; and I just added another parent, Category:Non-fiction crime books. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. A clear description of the scope of this category should be part of its title. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (Note: User:Tim! is the category's creator. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films released on holidays[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically trivia and not a defining characteristic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a remarkably bad idea. Oculi (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a lot of things defining for a film: its setting, its themes, its plot devices. Release information and production trivia are both non-defining and uninteresting. Dimadick (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a horribly problematic category. Considering how many days are holidays in one place or another. Does the holiday have to be recognized where the film is primarily released. What about if a film released first on one date in the US and some other places, and then releases a month later in Japan on a date that is a holiday in Japan. Does the film then qualify? Or what about released all over the US, on say July 24th, which is a holiday in Utah? As long as the film opens in theatres in Utah on that day, does it count, even though people in California and New York, who probably outnumber viewers of the film than those in Utah, would not see it as released as a holiday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More Syria categories B[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow up to the closure of a previous nom converting Syria categories to Ottoman Syria: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 31#Syria categories to cover categories omitted from that nom. The present Syria was part of a larger prvince of the Ottoman Empire, which WP is calling Ottoman Syria. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
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.

More Syria categories A[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 per nom. Consensus is for a rename with this one having the best consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. My first nomination on Syria categories has now been closed as merges and renames to "Ottoman Syria", after I withdrew the option of merging to Ottoman Empire. The question then arises as to what should be done with Syria categories from the preeciding period, before the Ottomans copnquered Syria in 1516. I am suggesting the policy that the period 1260-1516 should be categorised as either "Mamluk Syria" or possibly "Mamluk Empire". The whole tree contains 6-8 categories, which are supporting just two articles. In addition there is one for 1515 (currently, but probably incorrectly in "Ottoman Syria", which will need to be recategorised and a very few articles from the preceding period in sibling categories. The npoint is that Syria (as we know it today) did not exist as a polity until after WWI.
This is a test nomination to which I may add. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Mamluk Syria", with the Mamluk Empire category also being created, to cover Mamluk Egypt and other regions. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Although I have to admit I am not convinced we really need the schema at all pre-1800 for establishments by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You don't see any categories named Xth century in Roman Syria, Xth century in Byzantine Syria or Xth century in Abbasid Syria under Category:Centuries in Syria. Just leave it at 15th century in Syria. —  dainomite   06:38, 11 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:BDSM writers (manuals and guides)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:BDSM writers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting and upmerging to Category:BDSM writers (I note some members of this category are already there). Presumably the distinction here is to separate fiction and nonfiction writers, but I'm not sure that's especially important, or that this is the right way to do it. BDD (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent -- I would further comment that WP dislikes abbreviations. We have a whole tree of BDSM categories, but none of them explain what it is. Even the main article BDSM does not explain in its first line that it stands for "Bondage Discipline Sadism and Masochism". I expect that we need this tree and that LGBT it is better with its abbreviation, but the expansion should appear in a headnote for every such category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent If a category is going to make a distinction between non-fiction and fiction works, it should say so in the title. Dimadick (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus[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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Every single one of the categories and articles under this category is also listed in Category:Canis lupus which is the parent category. It seems redundant to have them listed under Species and Subspecies, especially since they are Dogs and Wolves and most readers will look towards those categories or the species category, not the subspecies category. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rather misleading description. Category:Canis lupus is mostly empty and all articles seem to have been properly moved to subcategories, except than the one on the Dingo. And I don't know why the Nominator assumes that "most readers" won't be interested in taxonomic distinctions. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are sufficient number of articles to sustain this categorization. There are also sufficient number of entries to sustain the greater species categorization, once you remove all subspecies into the subspecies category. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This appears to be a misunderstanding on the nominator's part. Most of the articles under Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus are also under the sister category Category:Wolves, which I suspect was the nominator's intended target pair. I note that Dingo is in both the subspecies subcategory and in Category:Canis lupus. At the conclusion of this discussion, one of them needs to be removed from the article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, 70.24.244.158, Beeswaxcandle, under this subspecies category (Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus) is the category Dogs and individual articles on Wolves. But the category Dogs and the category Wolves (which contain the Wolves articles) are under the species category (Category:Canis lupus) as well. So the same files are in both the Species and the Subspecies categories.
This is redundant. Either the Subspecies category should be deleted or all of the Dogs and Wolves categories and associated articles should be removed from Category:Canis lupus and only be present in Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus. What purpose does it serve to have the same articles in both the species category as well as the subspecies category? This makes the two categories have identical contents as they both consist of the Dog articles, the Wolf articles and the Dingo article. Liz Read! Talk! 14:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only article at both levels is Dingo.

Category:Canis lupus has four sub-categories. One of these is the taxonomic sub-category Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus. The other three relate to common name groupings within the species. Category:Wolves contains wolf-related articles such as Never Cry Wolf, Homo homini lupus, and Pre-caudal gland as well as links to the common names of wolf subspecies. Category:Dogs is similar for the domestic dog. While there are overlaps between the taxonomic sub-category and the common-name cultural sub-categories there is no redundancy as the two have different purposes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. I really do not think we need this specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Concord Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 2 entries. ...William 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I am not convinced people by township is really needed at all. Counties seem specific enough for me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Chester Township, Pennsylvania[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Survivors of stabbing[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 arguments for deletion carry more weight as well as being more numerous. No objection to making a list of notable cases. For any cases that should be included in categories for violence, consider creating redirects e.g. "Stabbing of X". – Fayenatic London 14:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the former members. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles about people should be categorized by their reason(s) for notability (plus date-of-birth etc), not by things that have happened to them (however serious). This category contains articles about people who are notable for things other than being stabbed (being a criminal, pop star, king etc). I've checked a sample of the articles in the category and in most cases the stabbing is not mentioned in the lead and is only mentioned briefly in the body of the article (sometimes not even that). Being stabbed, although a serious event, is just one of many things that may happen to a person during their lifetime. For info: This category includes both people who were stabbed before becoming famous (e.g. in a teenage brawl) and people who were stabbed when famous (e.g. by a stalker). Note: Category:Shooting survivors and subcats has similar issues. DexDor (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly after listifying). There will be a few people who are notable only (or mainly for being stab victims), but generally this will be a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Since we have the category Category:Stabbing victims which is not being questioned, as well as Category:Deaths by stabbing, it would appear that this category is a necessary component of the category tree here. Hmains (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That we (often) categorize people by cause of death, doesn't mean we have to categorize people by non-fatal events in their lives (of which one person could have many - e.g. shot, stabbed and in a car crash). DexDor (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Per the reasons listed by Hmains. I don't know why DexDor assumes that significant bio information should be in the lead instead of the body of the article, but surviving attacks is not trivial information. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - In addition to the reasons already articulated, I would also note that surviving a stabbing attack can be as significant in that person's life as any of the disabilities that we categorize for. Cgingold (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial; if it isn't in the lede, it's not why someone's notable (see WP:COP#N). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is why some people are notable, such as Abigail Witchalls. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But actual experience shows that people will insist on putting everyone this happened to in the category, limiting categories to people for whom something is truly notable for, and limiting the categories that someone is in to things that define them has not worked. The best way is to just have not defining categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that seems to be a bit of a trade-off that's required; in such cases, it is a judgment call as to whether it's "worth it" or not. Similar considerations/problems apply to many, many extant categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stabbing does not even have to be anywhere near life threatening. This is not really a notable thing. Not to the level of categorizing by at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category does not and, in reality, cannot distinguish between people who were stabbed and deeply affected by it (e.g., long-term psychological trauma, permanent disability) and people who sustained only minor injuries and no long-term effects. It is not unlike a category of survivors of automobile accidents, which would be equally unmanageable; surviving a car accident can be a significant event in a person's life, or it can just be a minor incident that is not at all relevant to the person's notability. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will add, furthermore, that the category does not take into account historical circumstances. I imagine many soldiers and warriors who sustained non-fatal wounds during the pre-firearms era were 'survivors of stabbing'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point being? Because that sounds to me as a point in favor of keeping the category and expanding it to cover military history. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A category, with limited exceptions, should reflect a characteristic that is both shared by all of its members and defining for them in a similar way. My point was and remains that the significance—in terms of a person's notability, and not just in context of their private life—of being stabbed is vastly different for a 20th-century person who becomes permanently disabled, a 20th-century person who requires a one-hour trip to hospital for minor treatment, and a 10th-century soldier who is wounded by a sword or spear during a battle. For the first person, the experience might be significant to their notability; for the second and third, it most likely is not. Your proposal of "expanding it to cover military history" seems to hint at creating Category:Military personnel wounded in action, which does not exist for good reason. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am convinced by those who have commented in favour of deletion. I agree that it's OK to categorize by cause of death, but we generally should not categorize by surviving things that could have but did not cause death, like this and Category:Cancer survivors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Used with care, the category provides useful information. I've used it for the new page I created for Nova Scotia musician Scott Jones, left paralyzed this weekend in an incident that seems to have been a particularly vicious gay bashing. — Objectivesea (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Scott Jones (musician) isn't notable (see WP:BLP1E) - he wasn't notable (as a musician) before the attack. Most of the current contents of the article (which may also have problems like WP:NOTNEWS) are about the attack - which may be notable. It would be better to rename that article to "Attack on Scott Jones" (or similar) and then place it under Category:Violence in Canada which is really the topic that it belongs under. See for example Abigail Witchalls. DexDor (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bottom line, is surviving any kind of an attack defining for majority of people? I think the answer is no. If you leave the category, then how do you provide for an objective inclusion criteria? I would not oppose a listify or a selective upmerge to Category:Stabbing victims where having been stabbed is defining. As this now exists, all contents are really a binary choice, you survived or your did not and are categorized as such. I don't believe that this is what we normally do this. We should separate out those that died as that is generally going to make having been stabbed notable. So we only need one child category and not two. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 5 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:American Water Landmarks[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for "Structures given the designation American Water Landmark from the American Water Works Association". The WP:DEFINING characteristics of a piece of infrastructure (e.g. Hoover Dam) are what it is (dam, aquaduct etc), where it is, when it was built etc (i.e. the details at the start of the article). That the structure has received (what is in effect) an award (which in many cases isn't mentioned in the article at all) isn't such a defining characteristic - see WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at American and Canadian Water Landmark. DexDor (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is clearly an awards category. WP:OC#AWARD, unlike NHR designations, this is not an award by a national body, but (apparently) a private association. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awards to things are the worst type of award category. At least with awards to people we can test to see if the person actually showed up to receive the award, we can't even do that with awards to things. Plus, things by their very nature can last indefinitely, and keep getting awards over time. Do we want to categorize things as having been recognized by prominent award givers 500 years ago, 200 years ago and 10 years ago?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Software companies based in Switzerland[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: speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "based in" and "of" mean pretty much the same thing. DexDor (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No discussion necessary. The target category already existed (and has for years), and is fully in line with the naming convention in place for national subcategories of Category:Software companies by country, while the nominated category was an erroneous creation, barely a week old, which only contained a single entry. Speedy redirected as a duplicate of an existing category. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_7&oldid=1074812198"