Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Holly Brook albums[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:Skylar Grey albums. The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories, this one and Category:Skylar Grey albums exist for the same person. The main article is Skylar Grey. I don't see this as a Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam situation. If so, then the albums should be split accordingly and the two categories should not have identical content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: To check that this is indeed not the situation identified in the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 23:08, 4 February 2014 (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:Articles created via the Article Wizard[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 for now until the use of the Draft: namespace with respect to the WP:Articles for creation process is stabilized. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if deletion is the best answer here, or whether some kind of process reform might be more appropriate, so this is more a nomination for discussion than deletion per se.

The category seems to be a remnant of an abandoned tracking process; with the original intention to log each page and then remove the category. This process has not run since 2010, and since the article wizard is no longer new I don't really see the value in keeping around a category of 30,000+ pages indefinitely. W. D. Graham 23:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the subcategories: Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard with 14 monthly subcategories and Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard with 52 monthly subcategories? Deleting this category is not possible as long as those exist, so either delete all or none. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said in the nomination, I was looking to start a discussion, not just a flat-out deletion, to resolve the permanant nature and unmanagable size of this category. That said, I don't see any reason whatsoever that those categories would neccessarily have to be deleted along with this one should that happen. "Unreviewed new articles" is (in theory, at least) a valid, temporary, cleanup category and should remain as such - since the article wizard is more likely to be used by inexperienced editors my understanding of the purpose of that category is to ensure they receive additional attention. The userspace drafts categories could be retained under the Userspace drafts category tree. The key difference is that those categories serve, or at least purport to serve, valid and potentially useful cleanup purposes, they are split into more managable sized subcategories and are designed to be temporary - being removed once the draft goes live, or the page is reviewed. --W. D. Graham 16:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Although there seems no interest in keeping the category, I would like more agreement before deleting a category containing 33,000 articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 22:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been listed on WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally prefer to hold of on making any decisions with what to do with this category as we now have the Draft: namespace and there has been some discussions in various places including AfC on what to do with the new namespace and how to best utilize it. There has also been discussion about possibly re-building the wizard to be more efficient (my personal favorite is as a guided tour which would require some content and some sources to be cited). Once the path that the wizard is going to take is more clear, then it would be more appropriate to decide if anything further needs to be done with this category (it may very well be re-purposed in the process of re-designing the wizard). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to agree and defer here to the wise judgment of Technical 13, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought that retaining this category as-is would actually be detrimental to that process going forward, given its sheer size and the fact that no form of version tracking has been implemented with it so far. --W. D. Graham 23:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And the separate subcategories for this tools seems to only delay getting those categories review since they are hidden in a subdirectory. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been listed on WT:WikiProject Articles for creation. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this category had 33,000 two days ago on the 5th when BHG posted it on WP:CENT and now has 0 and counting, I'd say it is a fairly heavily used category and it should be left be until there everything else is figured out first. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot I'd like to fix about AfC. Mostly what is needed is more eyes and hands. Deleting this category is not the place to start. Dlohcierekim 02:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now until the use of the Draft: namespace with respect to the WP:Articles for creation process is stabilized. Removing this now while there are so many other balls in the air would be disruptive. When the time comes, start an request for comments on WT:WPAFC rather than here, or list it here with a 30-day RFC-length discussion period rather than the usual 7-day discussion period, and advertise it on WT:WPAFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This should not be deleted without a clear consensus to do so.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2014 (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:Kamchatka[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. Users can nominate the new categories for deletion if they feel that categorization by the peninsula in these ways is inappropriate. I'm also adding the "the" since I believe that is the preferred form in English (though certainly not in Russian, which doesn't have articles). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy

I have left the out the subcategories for now pending the outcome of this one. Tim! (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Kamchatka" is the name of the region as a whole, is it not? "Kamchatka Peninsula" would be redundant. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kamchatka redirects to Kamchatka Peninsula. Tim! (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kamchatka is ambiguous per comments above about the peninsula, region and krai. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with the addition of "the" to the subcategories (i.e. "Foo of the Kamchatka Peninsula"). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 9 February 2014 (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.

Women ceramists[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) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Women ceramists to Category:Ceramists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Gender is irrelevant to ceramics, and women ceramists has only one subcategory - American women ceramists. American ceramists contains many female ceramists that are not categorized as women ceramists. (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. see above. (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated these categories after looking at a number of articles on ceramists. Most of them were on contemporary Western artists, where there is no difference at all. BrownHairedGirl's research shows clearly that at least in some cultures women are/were the only ceramists, for example in the outer Hebrides (Wilson 2008), while in others male and female ceramists produced clearly distinct works (Carlon 2008). A new category for 'male ceramists' might be more appropriate in these cases. While it seems that there is relatively little academic interest, the introductory article for that issue of Interpreting Ceramics by Moira Vincentelli makes a compelling case for considering gender in ceramics, and so I'd like to rectract my nomination.-- (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge both While there have been periods of time where women were less involved in ceramics, on the whole women have always been connected to the production of pottery and ceramic art, and I don't see the need to separate them here accordingly. Can you nominate Category:American women ceramists as well? I don't think we need either - and American women ceramists is a violation of the last-rung rule, and would tend to ghettoize as there aren't any other sub-categories that American ceramists can be put into. Note: before merging the Women ceramics cat verify that all contents are not already in sub-categories of Ceramists - if they are just delete. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This is the only sub-cat of American ceramacists. This is the debate over Category:American women novelists all over again, except 1-we do not have a Women in ceramics article to defend that it is a clear topic, 2-it is less clear that women do ceramics differently, mainly will argue women and men do novles differently, 3-American novelists always had non-gendered sub-cats, this does not, 4-a division by century seems unneed, since the totally category comes in under 120 (there is some overlap at present, so I am not sure what the actualy total is).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless someone can establish that there is a significant difference between the products of male and female ceramicists. The analogy with novelists is unhelpful as there tends to be a significant difference in the kinds of novels that men and women respectively write. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to my surprise. I had expected to find that a little research would lead to me endorsing the nomination, but instead the opposite. It turns out that the role of women in ceramics is indeed a combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, and that a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category. That fits the criteria in WP:CATGRS#Special_subcategories.
    Some examples of the sources available:
  1. Gendered Vessels: Women and Ceramics by Moira Vincentelli an exhibition at Aberystwyth University
  2. The Role and Status of Women in the Pottery-Making Traditions of the Western Balkans, in the peer-reviewed journal Interpreting Ceramics
  3. Barvas Ware: Women Potters of Barvas, Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides, also in Interpreting Ceramics
  4. Women in Ceramics , Brighton Royal Pavilion and Museums
  5. Pottery by American Indian women: the legacy of generations -- book
  6. Women and Ceramics: Gendered Vessels book by Moira Vincentelli
  7. Oaxacan Ceramics: Traditional Folk Art by Oaxacan Women
  8. Art, history, and gender: Women and clay in West Africa, African Archaeological Review,
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 12 February 2014 (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.

Great Purge[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of categories
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent per WP:OC#SMALL. Most of these sub-cats contain just one or two entries and I see no value in having the sub-cats at this level. Even the Moscow cat doesn't get into double figures. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:08, 4 February 2014 (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:IPhone software[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the "Not to be confused with Category:iOS software" hat is supposed to mean. Is this cat supposed to be just for iPhone as opposed to iPad software or what? Or maybe this is supposed to have non-Apple-made software for the iPhone? Scope of the cat is unclear so I propose to upmerge it or change its name accordingly if someone can figure out what it's supposed to contain distinct from the iOS software cat. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the distinction is not that defining; also, many apps start on one platform and eventually versions are developed for other platforms. For our purposes, it is enough to know they run on IOS - whether on the touch, the ipad, or the iPhone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2014 (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 Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee 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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A medal awarded to anyone who happened to have served five years at the time it was awarded. I've got one myself. Not at all worth categorising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Widely distributed commemorative medals and an inefficient means of categorisation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When a holder of the medal starts the nomination, we have clearly let award categories get way out of hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (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 Volunteer Decoration[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another non-discretionary long service award given to all personnel who had served for the requisite time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (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:Decorations of the Royal Navy[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: relisted at CFD 2014 February 12. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I really don't see the point of these three individual categories. Most of the decorations can be and have been awarded to members of any of the three services. It depends where they are at the time (land, sea or air), not which service they belong to. This is pure overcategorisation. The few that are specific to one service can also be added to the appropriate service category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- if this merge goes ahead, it will be necessary to have split recipient lists by service. A plain merge will thus be unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't get what you are saying. What is the connection between this category and recipient lists by service? With the exception of the VC subcats (which don't really need to be here in any case, since they are already subcats of Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and can also be subcats of the individual service categories), this category is for the decorations themselves, not for the recipients of decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (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 France and Germany 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. And yet another campaign medal, awarded to all Commonwealth personnel who served in France or Germany during the Second World War. Huge numbers awarded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A widely distributed campaign medal of the Second World War, and not at all defining enough for a category. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of my grandfathers got one - it's not a defining characteristic. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-defining medal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Campaign stars are clearly non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (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 1939–45 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another category for a campaign medal. This one was awarded to a very large percentage of Commonwealth servicemen or woman who served in the Second World War. Millions were probably awarded. Completely pointless category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2014 (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:Auctions and trading[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: relisted at CFD 2014 Feb 18. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see much connection between auctions and trading. For example, current category entry Real estate trading has nothing to do with auctions. All the others are strictly auction topics. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't realize Trade already existed. I don't think we need to differentiate, Trade is sufficient. Changed my !vote.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge per nom. the only article that does not relate to auctions is real estate trading, which presumably covers both auction and private treaty sales. As the target is a subcategory of the subject, the parents of the subject need to be added to the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (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:SheZow[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 Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 3-article eponymous category for the television show SheZow. Not needed for navigation, because the 3 articles are adequately interlinked, and fails WP:SMALLCAT because it has no reasonable prospect of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She-delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I know, this TV show has been on for one season. Maybe if it is on for many more years and there are more related articles, it could be warranted. But, as is, it doesn't meet the standards for a WP:SMALLCAT. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Zow per Ten Pound HairdoHammer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the person who created this category has recently created other as-of-now-still-lightly-populated categories for television shows. Some may have potential, some are probably deletion-worthy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SheLete: I redirected the episode article to the main page...and now there's only two, which are hatnoted within the article. — Wyliepedia 21:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delay closing this until March 32, for obvious reasons. (j/k). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (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_February_4&oldid=1136462683"