Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Category:Shia Islamic militant organisations[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 and recategorize some articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Militant organisations by nature act to influence or protect political situations. Islamism is the philosophy of political Islam. I would hope that this move, is approved, would use the final wording "...group" or "...organization" as per discussion at bottom of this page. The parallel to this is Category:Sunni Islamist groups. GregKaye 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This move would change the composition of the category. Some of the contents are adherents of Shia Islam, but not Islamism (e.g. Mahdi Army, Sheibani Network). This rename would force them out of the category. It is important not to conflate Islam with Islamism. SFB 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SFB There are other categories relevant for other Shia related topics. I hope that we might work towards consistency of titles. The working out of contents to match won't be hard. GregKaye 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis that non-Islamist groups are forced out of the structure. SFB 13:23, 5 January 2015 (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:Wikipedians who like The Saturdays[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) 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. CSD was declined despite the message at Category:Wikipedians interested in music. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Bob Geldof didn't like Mondays but didn't know why. What's wrong with liking the Saturdays? GregKaye 23:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the basis of the extensive previous CfD discussion. Wikipedia isn't Facebook! Sionk (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I like Saturdays. Legacypac (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. User categories are not "Facebook likes" that get created for every individual characteristic of interest that a person might want to advertise on their userpage — they are allowed to exist only where they facilitate active collaboration on a broad range of topics, which "user likes this band" does not do. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2015 (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:Black Books characters[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) 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No characters link to this page, only a list Fuddle (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the redirects in the category link back to the one actual article (and it looks unlikely there will be any individual, sourced articles on any of the characters). Sionk (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category should be kept. It is a sub-category of Category:Sitcom characters by series. It seems like the kind of category that meets wp:SMALLCAT's provision: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." (emphasis added). --doncram 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the thousands upon thousands of sitcoms that have ever existed around the entire world over the entire history of television, a grand total of 63 of them have subcategories in Category:Sitcom characters by series. So this isn't a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" by any stretch of the imagination — and the category would have to contain articles, not redirects, to be justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirects do not count as proper members for categorisation as there is no true content, which I believe is a condition for category creation. The main "characters" article is already in Category:Lists of sitcom television characters, which is sufficient for this series. SFB 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Much as I love Black Books, there is no need for this category. All the category members redirect to the single article Characters of Black Books and that article is already listed within Category:Lists of sitcom television characters which is itself a subcategory of Category:Sitcom characters by series. That obviates Doncram's argument that the Black Books-specific category should be kept for ease of navigation. Case closed (for me).Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. If all the category contains is a bunch of differently named redirects to a single character list, then that's not navigationally useful. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2015 (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:Philippine Royalty and Nobility[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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Standard naming. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Category:Asian royalty for consistency, although I think royalty by country would actually be a better choice. SFB 16:03, 1 January 2015 (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:Bridges completed in 1320[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: double upmerge as proposed. If WP content ever grows such that any of these categories could have more than one article in it, the relevant category can be re-created and re-discussed, if necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessarily precise categorisation for a particular construction type completed in a particular year. The chances of identifying other bridges with a specific completion date this early must be very small. Each of these categories only contains one article and it's abundantly clear from the names that they are bridges. Recommend upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, to aid simple navigation of the category tree. Sionk (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not prohibit series categories. While the farther back you go, your arguments are stronger, but as you move forward, they are less so. There are many notable bridges that lack articles. The fact that they do not yet exist is not a reason to delete this set of categories and the obvious extensions of the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been writing a few bridge articles recently so I'm sympathetic to your cause. But in reality it's not until the 18th century that we begin to have enough bridges with definite years of completion to make a split from Category:Buildings and structures completed in YYYY viable. I'd nominate up to the 1600s if I had time!! Sionk (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For this century (and 15th/16th/17th too) decade categories would work okay, I agree, a good interim solution! They would additionally be useful for bridges whose approximate date of completion is known. Sionk (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always I oppose that option as not needed. It adds an extra level of navigation that is not need given the limited size of the century category even when fully populated. Also the advantage of using for cases with imprecise dates is overrated as some fall into multiple decades.
It wouldn't be an additional level, it would replace the single year/article tier of categorisation, if I understand Peterkingiron correctly. Sionk (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to buildings by year and bridges by century category. The category system is to group like material. It is unlikely that "bridges by year" will attract many (any?) well-populated categories, but the feature in itself is not very defining. Just because a bridge was completed in 1320 doesn't mean it has more in common with another bridge built in 1320, as opposed to a geographically closer bridge built in 1325. The date is not a very defining feature at all to categorise on. A much better system would be to use higher level dates (decades/centuries) and introduce geographical areas to better group like material. I think the complexities of this structure (and the other buildings and structures categories by date) means people have missed the fact that this is objectively failing to serve the main principle of categorisation (defining features, grouping like material). SFB 15:56, 1 January 2015 (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:Bridges completed in 1200[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: double upmerge as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessarily precise categorisation for a particular construction type completed in a particular year. The chances of identifying other bridges with a specific completion date this early must be very small. Each of these categories only contains one article. Recommend upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, to aid simple navigation of the category tree. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All It's OK if this type of tree has a few small sub-categories but, if they're all small, it's time to consolidate them. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer merger to decade categories, though these will still be small. The articles should also have a Fooland in 1200 or Fooland in 1200s category, where Fooland is the country where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to buildings by year and bridges by century category. The category system is to group like material. It is unlikely that "bridges by year" will attract many (any?) well-populated categories, but the feature in itself is not very defining. Just because a bridge was completed in 1320 doesn't mean it has more in common with another bridge built in 1320, as opposed to a geographically closer bridge built in 1325. The date is not a very defining feature at all to categorise on. A much better system would be to use higher level dates (decades/centuries) and introduce geographical areas to better group like material. I think the complexities of this structure (and the other buildings and structures categories by date) means people have missed the fact that this is objectively failing to serve the main principle of categorisation (defining features, grouping like material). SFB 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some kind of upmerge, because (1) precise dates are often spurious for this period, (2) there are likely to be very few entries for each category, and (3) there's little reason to expect commonality between bridges from various regions that are asserted to have been completed in a particular year. Century and decade may be useful date ranges for categorization of medieval bridges. Region (e.g. England, Mesopotamia) and culture (e.g. Artuqids, Ayyubids) are definitely useful categories. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2015 (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:Bridges completed in 1107[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: double upmerge as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bridges completed in 1107
Category:Bridges completed in 1151
Category:Bridges completed in 1160
Category:Bridges completed in 1170
Category:Bridges completed in 1185
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessarily precise categorisation for a particular construction type completed in a particular year. The chances of identifying other bridges with a specific completion date this early must be very small. Each of these categories only contains one article. Recommend upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, to aid simple navigation of the category tree. Sionk (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All It's OK if this type of tree has a few small sub-categories but, if they're all small, it's time to consolidate them. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to buildings by year and bridges by century category. The category system is to group like material. It is unlikely that "bridges by year" will attract many (any?) well-populated categories, but the feature in itself is not very defining. Just because a bridge was completed in 1320 doesn't mean it has more in common with another bridge built in 1320, as opposed to a geographically closer bridge built in 1325. The date is not a very defining feature at all to categorise on. A much better system would be to use higher level dates (decades/centuries) and introduce geographical areas to better group like material. I think the complexities of this structure (and the other buildings and structures categories by date) means people have missed the fact that this is objectively failing to serve the main principle of categorisation (defining features, grouping like material). SFB 15:56, 1 January 2015 (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:Bridges completed in 1065[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The chances of there being another notable bridge with an exact completion date of 1065 must be absolutely minute. This is simply an unnecessarily precise additional step on the category tree for a single article. Sionk (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This makes the categories choppy and doesnt' aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Though I am suggesting decade categories for later centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (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:Recipients of the 1914–15 Star[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) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a campaign medal awarded to all British and Imperial personnel who saw active service in those years. Millions were awarded. We never keep categories for these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm more ambivalent to deleting this one, the medal was awarded to regular British and Commonwealth soldiers who fought in the Great War before compulsory conscription was enforced. It's a more finite subset of 'everyone who fought in the Great War'. Considering the heightened interest in the early years of the War, I'm leaning towards a 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, millions awarded, same for 1914 Star. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Campaign medals were awarded to all who served in the campaign. They are not a mark of distinction (or notability) and too common to merit a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining feature. A better approach would be to have a list of biographies we have articles on that have served in a certain war theatre (although that sounds like a mammoth task too). SFB 16:04, 1 January 2015 (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:Recipients of the Victory Medal (United Kingdom)[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) 06:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a campaign medal awarded to all British and Imperial personnel who saw service in the First World War. Millions were awarded. We never keep categories for these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nominator's proposal. This category would effectively contain every notable British man(?) who had served in any of the forces in the Great War! Sionk (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Campaign medals were awarded to all who served in the campaign. They are not a mark of distinction (or notability) and too common to merit a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (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:Recipients of the British War Medal[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) 06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a campaign medal awarded to all British and Imperial personnel who saw active service in the First World War. Millions were awarded. We never keep categories for these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nominator's proposal. This category would effectively contain every notable British man(?) who had served in the army in the Great War. There must be a more transparent way of categorising this! Sionk (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Campaign medals were awarded to all who served in the campaign. They are not a mark of distinction (or notability) and too common to merit a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2015 (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:Jihadist organizations[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) 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please either make this change or, conversly, move Category:Islamist groups to Category:Islamist organizations. I think that there may have been POV in operation and I think that the ascribing of "groups" in relation to one applied designation and the ascribing of "organizations" to the other presents clear problems with NPOV. I personally consider organizations as being a subset of groups and think that the later is best used with regard to wide application. Objection also exists even in relation to the use of Category:Jihadist organizations as shown by the article talk page. This is also demonstrated in that in searches "self proclaimed jihadist" got "About 4,730 results" while "self proclaimed islamist" only got "About 68 results". I'd echo comments on the talk page that propose that this category be deleted. GregKaye 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I think preferably a number of categories could be considered to be standardised as either groups or organizations as follows: Category:Activities by jihadist organization, Category:Islamist insurgent groups‎, Category:Members of jihadist organizations, Category:Organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Category:Salafi organizations. Of relevance, I think, is that the geopolitical organisations are typically defined as "Rebel groups that control territory." GregKaye 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to the broader scope of groups. Such militant groups often have diverse supporters, actors and leadership figures. Particularly, outlawed groups tend to avoid a clear hierarchical structure to avoid infiltration. These features aren't normally associated with the idea of an "organisation", but all organisations can still be classed as groups more broadly. SFB 16:32, 1 January 2015 (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/2014_December_31&oldid=1074812716"