Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25[edit]

Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories[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: Category not tagged. No objection to it being raised again, if the category is actually tagged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only Russia actually belongs to this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs)
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:Diseases involving the fasciae[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: moved. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring into line with other members of Category:Soft tissue disorders Mschamberlain (talk) 21:22, 25 May 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:List of cities in India[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: bold move reverted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An editor unnecessarily moved .Please restore. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – this is a category of lists of cities in India and was correctly named. Oculi (talk) 21:47, 25 May 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:Product introductions by century[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 Category:Product introductions by year, otherwise no consensus/procedural close. It is unclear what is proposed and why. Categories for introductions e.g. Category:2006 introductions‎ include things other than products, such as fictional characters, so it does not seem desirable to merge the product introductions categories up into the general Introductions category, as pointed out by Peter James, and the nominator did not respond to this point. Likewise, Category:21st-century introductions contains categories for words and games introduced, as well as products, so deleting just Category:Products introduced in the 21st century seems undesirable as it would remove only part of that hierarchy. I am unable to find a consensus to delete just the product introductions by century categories, as different participants seem to have read the proposal differently. Also, there is a statement that something was edited on May 29, but no clarity as to whether the preceding comments on May 25 validly relate to the proposal as currently shown; please make changes traceable in future by striking out the original with <s></s> tags, and adding the replacement text with the date. Moreover, the sub-categories to be deleted/merged have not been tagged, and this is required, as pointed out by John Park Lambert. This close is no bar to making a further nomination, but please be more specific and do nominate (at least some of, preferably all of) the sub-categories that are also to be deleted/merged. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since we have already "__(insert year here)__introductions" categories, all of these seem to be redundant. Every year in the "Products introduced in ____ categories" we don't need. Tinton5 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Many articles that are products use the "_xxxx_ introductions" categories, such as Special K (Category:1956 introductions). Tinton5 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Product introductions by year and merge in all the century categories. We currently have one category for 1867; 34 years for 20th century; and some for 21st century. This is not too much for one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- OOPs, the rename target already exists so that we do not need a rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no need for this intermediary container hierarchy. Slotting the products into the introductions-by-year is sufficient and easier to maintain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited on May 29, 2014 — Tinton5 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The main "introductions" categories contain categories by type of introduction, and product introduction is one of them, so these are not redundant. The centuries are useful for consistency with the other introductions categories and may be needed if the exact year is uncertain (this currently applies to only 1 article, but it's unclear what would be gained by deleting this level). Peter James (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the status here? It's been over a month since nominated. 2 delete votes and 1 keep. Tinton5 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think delete except for a keep for Category:Product introductions by year. Keeping the by year category should be a given. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose In general I think we should probably keep this tree. However, having watched similar things go down, you need a nomination that covers each individual sub-cat if you want anything done. The current proposal would just orphan categories, and since it has not been posted on those categories is not widely enough publicized. I know this creates inertia and preservation of possibly not useful trees, but since I have gotten a parent category deleted only to latter see the child categories survive and the parent category be recreated, this is the best approach in my opinion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 2 July 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:Sports in Rhône-Alpes[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) 23:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Subcategories of Category:Sport by country are Sport in rather than Sports in--Dr Zimbu (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It sounds better too. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While we do make an exception for the United States, since the usage in American English is unequivocally "sports" rather than "sport", the standard for nearly all other countries worldwide — and, for that matter, the existing standard for every other sibling category in Category:Sport in France by region — is "sport". Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 29 May 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:Social machines[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. At this stage, the arguments against this being used as a set category are persuasive. It could potentially be used as a topic category, but right now there would not be enough content to populate it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a novel term and not regularly used as far as I can tell. We already have plenty of social media categories without adding this new one- anything which puts Facebook and galaxy zoo in the same category is rather broad definition - this could survive as a topic category but we don't have enough articles, and it's not defining otherwise - few reports about Facebook call it a social machine (but plenty call it a social network) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is an active area of research with quite a few published articles etc. from people such as Tim Berners-Lee. The term 'social machines' is growing in usage and will feature heavily at Wikimania. - Lawsonstu (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This page is currently under construction as part of the wikimania hack weekend - this project is intended to be ongoing and to explore the disambiguation to the point of a working definition and academic understanding of 'social machines' in and of a modern context, specifically that of wikipedia as an example of a virtual space social machine. See social machines.. Littlepurplegoth
  • Oppose It should not be deleted in my opinion - social machines refers to a class of large-scale social phenomena, rather than just social media - they have been classified in peer reviewed papers one[1], and significant projects have been funded studying their phenomenology[2]. Daniel Smith (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes I'm sure there are interesting papers on the subject, but it fails WP:DEFINING - the term of art simply hasnt caught on. A list in the article may be more appropriate but a category is not at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you pointed to WP:DEFINING, but I think being a social machine is a defining attribute of these projects. It may not be referred to as such in many popular reports yet, but the growth of social machines research as a field is changing that. I would be interested in hearing more opinions about this. - Lawsonstu (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't referred to as such in popular reports yet, then no, it isn't a defining attribute yet — being referred to as such in popular reports is what would make it defining. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The terms has caught on. Entire university teams work on the theory and practice of social machines and call them "social machines", e.g. in Edinburgh, Oxford and Southampton in the United Kingdom. Salaries are being paid to people researching "social machines". I believe this is more than sufficient to justify the existence of the category and the Wikipedia entry. Giacecco (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we already have 'social networks' and a whole other massive category structure to categorize websites. If the category is kept it should be purged of individual sites since it duplicates existing category structures. For example we have a whole category just for wikis - by definition of social machine most wikis are social machines, but it doesn't make sense to re-tag all wikis with this descriptor.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it should be purged only of the big sites e.g. Facebook and Wikipedia, or all sites? - Lawsonstu (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we already have deep categories around crowd sourcing and a big container of web2.0. Social machines is a new construction that looks at all of these things just through a different lens but we shouldn't build a whole new category structure around it. Focus in the article first. And yes if purged, all sites would be removed, and it would become a topic category vs a set category and only contain articles relevant to the topic - the problem is I don't think we have more than one topic article yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The construction of list/category is part and parcel of the groupwork towards the article set. This is a major topic for the wikimania conference and part of the work ahead of that is the construction of the materials sets, subsets and categories to enable participants to access the full range of references. Littlepurplegoth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlepurplegoth (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there's no problem with building a representative list in the article but I don't see any value in tagging hundreds or thousands of Crowdsourcing websites and wikis with yet another category. Social machine is essentially a new way of looking at Web 2.0 and most we. 2.0 websites could be classified as social machines, the refs I've read are rather broad and include social networks (there are thousdNsd of these), photo-sharing sites like Flickr (again, many thousands). There's no point in adding this neologism to thousands of articles. If you think it can work as a topic cAtegory then please purge it of websites and add relevant topic articles. If there are only 2 or 3 that's now enough for a ctEgory normally.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Social machines are not the same thing as web 2.0 sites. Web 2.0 is defined by web interactivity; the idea of social machines predates the web. It is no more of a neologism than Web 2.0, although admittedly not as widely used yet.
If it was a topic category rather than a set category, and later it was used as a set category as well, would that be a problem? - Lawsonstu (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know they aren't the same thing but they are very closely related - that's the problem with starting a whole new category tree based on a slightly different way of categorizing and classifying websites, esp since we already have more specific ways of grouping these things like wikis, blogs, sociAl networks, and Crowdsourcing websites. For now until convinced otherwise I can't see this ever being used as a set category, except perhaps as a container, but as a container it will then duPlicate massively the Web 2.0 tree. Again, I think you're trying to use the category system in a way it isn't intended - it's not to be used to take 'new term from academia and then tag all related articles' especially something as broad as this one, which could be applied to thousands of pages. We have an existing hierarchy lets just use it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The terminology in this field is new. The extent to which particular terms flourish and are adopted should be left to be settled on a case by case basis. The issue should not be forced by the fiat of deletion. Andrew (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment all those voting keep should consider clarifying the intended scope of this category. Is it to contain all wikis, as well as the social security computer system? The definition of social machine is so broad as to potentially contain any system where humans and computers work together - such as a factory floor at Ford, any social website like reddit, etc. it's incredibly broad, and to place certain "famous" websites in here but exclude thousands of others that fit the definition doesn't make sense / and if the inclusion criteria for the category is such that it will contain thousands of websites it becomes too broad as to become useless at which point we would subcat it, by what? By the type of website, like wikis and blogs and social networks and so on - all of which already exist!! I know those voting here are interested in this as a topic but a topic esp as broad as this doesn't make for a very good category to classify websites - at least not as it's currently used.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the remarkably limited volume of proper sourcing present in the head article social machine, and the complete lack of any reliable sources which actually describe even one thing in the category as being a "social machine", I fail to see how at the present time this category is anything more than a repository of original research. When there's a substantive volume of literature available about this topic, which properly supports a clear understanding of what does or doesn't belong in the category, then we can create it — but until then, this is WP:OCAT on a non-defining neologism. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The remarkably limited volume of proper sourcing present in the head article social machine' - disagree, for a new article under construction it has a fine number of references.
'The complete lack of any reliable sources which actually describe even one thing in the category as being a "social machine"' - this is a false statement, for example there is a reference in the social machine article directly referring to Wikipedia as a social machine. Here's another for Twitter.
'When there's a substantive volume of literature available about this topic' - there are over 1000 hits for the exact phrase "social machines" in Google Scholar. Is that not enough? - Lawsonstu (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the category could potentially be retained as a topic category. But as a set category it fails WP:DEFINING. And as a topic category it needs more than one article. Again, you haven't answered the question - do all social networks and all wikis belong? If so, it becomes a container, and duplicates Category:Web 2.0, and a number of other categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the parameters, " humans and technology interacting and producing outputs or action which would not be possible without both parties present," I'm having a hard time understanding what wouldn't fall into this category, in our digital age. If this category is vital for the work of the wikimania hack weekend folks, can't we just move it so it's a hidden category of some kind, as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia meetups? I'd have no objection to retaining for the purposes of facilitating their work, as an administrative cat, while needed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm also ok with keeping as an admin-only category, which is intended to exist for a short time to gather sample articles related to a meetup, but in this case it should probably be applied to the talk pages of the pages in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vague neologism. Keep it in W-space or an administrative category if Wikimania is dead-set on doing something with this. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
refs[edit]
  1. ^ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/350513/
  2. ^ http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/J017728/1
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 under BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions[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. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Made obsolete by BLP special enforcement being Special:Permalink/606946789#DS_.282014.29_housekeeping_provisionsreplaced by standard discretionary sanctions which have their own categories and procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 25 May 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:Paul's helpers and converts[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; those in favour of merging have the guideline in question supporting their position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This recently created category adds an unnecessary layer to the tree; it goes against WP:OC#ASSOCIATED; there are no inclusion criteria nor any associated article (that I can find); the result is to put members into more than one of the 1st Century people categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mean to be against WP:OC#ASSOCIATED as it's restricted to helpers and converts. In this case, we can't really distinguish between helpers and converts, unfortunately. I'll add that in the category text. Obviously the result is to put members into more than one of the 1st Century people categories, I don't see an objection here since there are many subcategories of 1st Century people anyway. There are so many New Testament people listed directly in the New Testament category while they have no connection with each other, so it definitely makes sense to subcategorize them.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I like the idea of the category, but it's against WP:OCAT and might lead to future violations of WP:OCAT. Practically every New Testament figure communicated with each other, so there is really no point of this category when the |Category:New Testament people| solves all of this. Other editors might feel like Paul is the main figurehead of the New Testament because of this category, which might lead to other categories being formed for other New Testament peoples by other Wikipedia editors. Overall, the category is a fragment that simply drags out of order. -- ♣Jerm♣729 07:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I understand your concern about future violations of WP:OCAT. Does it help you when I made the category more explicitly restrictive?
  2. I definitely don't agree that practically every New Testament figure communicated with each other. In contrast, almost everyone in this newly created category hasn't communicated with anyone in the New Testament but Paul (or occasionally mutually with each other).
  3. Is there any principle involved in objecting against more subcategories of New Testament people? The reason I'm asking this is twofold. First, there is already a bunch of subcategories of New Testament people, so why not have additional ones? Second and even more important, I'd rather have New Testament people functioning just as a container category because there's way too many articles in it that are currently unsubclassified. If - as a reader - I'd be interested to find similar articles and I'd go for the New Testament people category page, I'd be totally lost in this amount of unsubclassified articles.
Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (=3a) Just to add on the latter, on the Category:Jesus page I found an explicit request to clean up the unsubclassified articles. So I did, and then I thought to start similarly for New Testament people. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- NT People is not so large that it needs to be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's something I'd like to question seriously. Right now there's no less than 126 single articles. Suppose someone reads about Pontius Pilate and he is interested to read about other Roman contemporaries of Jesus. Then what, should he open all 126 articles one by one?
Please note that it would be less of a problem if all 126 listed people would be sort of similar, like the Category:Seventy disciples). But that doesn't apply at all to NT people, they are actually very different from each other.
Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 179 (126 + 53 in the category under discussion) is not a large number for a WP category. However, diffusing the category by association with a particular character in the book of Acts is not a useful way of splitting up the category, as it inevitably leads to an "other" category, which are never accepted here. While I can think of other ways of diffusing, WP:BEANS comes to mind and I will refrain.

With respect to Pilate, he's in three categories related to his Roman links. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beeswaxcandle, please note that the 126 articles in fact are already an 'other'category, in relationship to the subcategories of New Testament people that already exist, like Category:Jesus and Category:followers of Jesus. I completely agree with you that an 'other' category is undesirable. So please go ahead and raise your proposal! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just generally, can we please think of the readers of Wikipedia. What purpose does categorization have for readers if the number of articles in a category is huge and if the category is still very heterogeneous... Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a useful split. The title is not the most elegant, but you get what's meant. Otherwise you'd have to mention bishops, elders, presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, widows etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:56, 27 May 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_May_25&oldid=1138399742"