Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21[edit]

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: RELIST. Although there seems no interest in keeping the category, I would like more agreement before deleting a category containing 33,000 articles. -Splash - tk 22:56, 4 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]
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:Surgical oncologists[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: merged. No prejudice against appropriate splitting of the resulting category. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently a single entry category. But the defining trait here may well be oncologists that don't do surgery. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lede for Category:Oncologists describes the two (major) forms of treatment: radiation and surgery. Perhaps Category:Oncologists needs splitting out to radiation and surgery. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are two major forms of treatment, and they will be expanding in the future if you believe the news. Right now, there are not many articles in the main category since they are in other subcategories. So the question is do we need those sub categories and are they defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and allow for different splits. I think the splitting of oncologists by nationality is enough. We do not need to split them in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The article Surgical oncology is wholly unreferenced, but notes there is no specialty Board certification for this field, and that "whether surgical oncology constitutes a medical specialty per se is the topic of a heated debate". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 27 January 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:Fictional[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:Fiction by topic. Clearly, there is consensus that the current name sucks. The suggestion by The Bushranger is probably the best that can be done, so that's what I'll implement. But note that this would not be a rename since the suggested target already exists - and looking through that category it does indeed appear to collect miscellaneous 'things in fiction'. The minor defect in this merge is the inconsistent naming of the contents of the Category:Fictional vs the consistent name "...in fiction" of the target - but those will have to be fixed separately, probably a set of speedy nominations is sufficient. -Splash - tk 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename: Category:Fictional to Category:Fictional content

Reason: Needs to be a modified noun 74.51.202.253 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note tagged as a speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while the current name sucks, the proposed name is much worse, since it would cover all fiction topics, which the current category does not. The content of a novel is fictional content, but novels are not categorized under fictional. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fiction by topic. I'm not sure that's a good name either, but just "Fictional" is bad, bad, bad, and "by topic" seems to be the intent. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 1 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:Spelt-out initialism pronounciations[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) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles should be categorized by characteristics of their topic, not by characteristics of their titles. The topics of Eminem and Humvee don't have much in common. We don't, for example, have categories for "things whose name begins with letter A", "articles whose titles contain long words", etc. DexDor (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete clearly not defining. It would be hard to even defend a list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say KEEEEEEEEP! Because I can always defend this article by making "subcategories" if it becomes too rampant with entries. --Highway 231 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic example of OCAT by similarity of something about how the name came to be (eponymous cities again). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --AdmrBoltz 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. To say nothing of the fact that the word is pronunciations instead of "pronounciations". SchreiberBike talk 04:53, 28 January 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:Retirement non-profit 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very confusing defining characteristic for this category. Mike (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least at this point. This newly created category is probably badly named and probably needs to be renamed to something like Category:Non-profit senior rights advocacy organizations to correctly reflect what the target should be. Since there is only one entry, delete is OK. If recreated with a new name, I would suggest a prior discussion to determine a name since my proposed name would likely fail for having too many intersections and not survive a CfD discussion to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 21 January 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:Burials in Graz[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 per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established system of categorisation under Category:Burials by country and city. The category now contains 5 articles, so the initial concern about size may be less applicable.
However, this closure is without prejudice to any wider proposal to delete or trim Category:Burials by place. The nominator's secondary concern about the WP:DEFININGness of place of burial applies equally well to other burials-by-city categories, and if that case is to be persued it should be applied to all such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. Is what location somebody is buried a defining characteristic too? ...William 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd probably support deleting the whole burials-in categorization (if it went to CFD/RFC), but as long as we have a burials-by-city scheme then categories like this are OK. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - where one's corpse winds up is not defining of the person, who has no awareness of it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the overall structure of the parent Category:Burials by city in Austria, which in turn is part of the global parent Category:Burials by country and city, and WP:SMALLCAT specifically excludes deletion where "categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". The majority of corpses don't just wind up somewhere, and most play an active role in selecting the place of the burial or of being aware where they will be buried. Of course there will be people such as JFK who may not have known the details of his burial at Arlington National Cemetery, though the lack of Kennedy's awareness of his assassination doesn't seem to prevent categorizing by that characteristic, either. No one chooses their place of birth or their ancestry and only a small fraction select their cause of death (Kennedy certainly didn't), yet this lack of active participation seems to be no obstacle to these category structures. Lack of awareness seems to be a rather poor justification for deletion in light of the existence of a global category structure that tracks this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMALLCAT does not exclude deletion of small categories. It merely allows for their existence if they are part of such a scheme. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that you're making a point here. SMALLCAT, the sole justification offered by the nominator, specifies that we should "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". This category is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme and there is no reason that it couldn't be readily expanded now or in the future. As opposed to ruminating on the potential awareness of the deceased regarding the final destination of their remains, I went directly to the relevant policy and that policy appears to support the continued existence of this category within the large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where one's body ends up could be defining - Westminster Abbey, or Arlington National Cemetery come to mind, but "in Graz", as opposed to a suburb of Graz or just millimeters outside the city limit is a non-notable distinction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Westminster Abbey and Arlington National Cemetery come to my mind as well, but couldn't someone be buried in an adjoining cemetery or religious structure rather than "at" Arlington or Westminster, perhaps just millimeters outside the cemetery / church, and wouldn't that mean that burials in those locations are non-notable distinctions requiring the deletion of both Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery and Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey? The bad argument for deletion arising from the hypothetical existence of a borderline case is one that could be used to justify the deletion of every Wikipedia category. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Per a well-known online encyclopedia, Graz is the second largest city in Austria. The fact that this has only one member is just an indication that we haven't searched hard enough. I'm sure we have other notable Austrians who are buried in Graz. Unless we take on the whole tree, killing this one just because it hasn't been populated doesn't make sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 23 January 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.

Template:2010s-india-actor-stub[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. This is not transcluded anywhere at this time, and evidently the template needs a new name, so deletion seems fine. NB. Procedurally, CfD is where stub-type templates are handled these days, according to WP:CFD. -Splash - tk 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The decade relates to the years the person was born. Compare with the established structure in Category:American screen actor stubs, for example. This is used in other category structures too, for example, decade of birth for cricketers, baseball players, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename to correct the capitalization. Although I doubt there are too many active actors yet who were born in the 2010s there will be eventually so might as well keep it. Pedantically this should be at WP:TFD but since the outcome is foregone why not just do it now? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a case for splitting the large Category:Indian actor stubs (738 items) by creating some templates for decade of birth, but this is the wrong way place to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 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_January_21&oldid=1138399382"