Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:East Liverpool players[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge duplicate category. Both could be merged to Category:East Liverpool Potters (baseball) players as this team only existed for two seasons before becoming East Liverpool Potters (baseball). Tassedethe (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge to the East Liverpool (minor league baseball) page.. but the Potters should remain separate as it was a separate version of the team that played in a different league. Spanneraol (talk) 17:07, 3 November 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:Tetrapods by country[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: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or upmerge those categories that aren't deleted (e.g. Category:Birds by country) to Category:Vertebrates by country. DexDor (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats to be upmerged
Note: The subcats have not been CFD tagged, but can be if that is considered necessary.
Nominator's rationale: Until recently "Vertebrates of Foo" categories were divided into (up to) 5 subcats (for fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). An editor (with a history of creating problematic categories) has recently inserted a tetrapods layer into the category structure - thus each "Vertebrates of Foo" category now has just 2 direct subcats (for fish and tetrapods). Whilst there is (afaik) nothing wrong taxonomically with grouping amphibians/reptiles/birds/mammals as tetrapods, it's not the usual way that animals are categorized (in books, zoos etc; words like "vertebrate", "invertebrate", "fish" and "mammal" are used much more frequently than "tetrapod"). Thus, I believe that the tetrapods layer is an unnecessary complication (for both readers and editors) to the wp category structure.
Note: This CFD only covers part of Category:Tetrapods. I propose to wait for this discussion to conclude before nominating other parts of the Tetrapods tree. Note: it could also be argued that for many animals (e.g. Link rat or Common waxbill) being found in, for example, Gabon is WP:NON-DEFINING, but I suggest we leave that to a separate CFD discussion. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All For background on prior discussions, please see User talk:NotWith. My concern is more with the WP:NON-DEFINING that the nominator alludes to and grouping widespread animals under tons of country categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all As noted above, User:NotWith has long been creating highly problematic categories without ever engaging in discussion. There are multiple problems with these (and many other categories created by this user):
    • They are too small: instead of starting with a large category and asking how far it should sensibly be split up, these are categories that have been "inserted" into an existing category hierarchy, breaking it down too finely.
    • They are not defining, either at the level of the taxonomic group (tetrapods are a meaningful category only to specialists) or at the level of the country.
Experience suggests, however, that NotWith will continue to create new categories faster than they can be cleaned up, so this may well be a futile exercise unless and until some action is taken against them. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this close I did suggest how to deal with this so that administrators could have a clear basis for action. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian, could you clarify what you mean by "formal warnings". Non-admins have been placing "please stop" messages, but these appear to be ignored (as are the CFD messages). This user has been receiving warnings for a long time - e.g. in 2008 when editing as Nono64 on French wp we get comments like "... has brought nothing but trouble since he arrived in the fall of 2006.", "... persistence despite warnings and discussions disrupt the encyclopedic work" and "does not respond ... and continues" (Google translate from [1]). I.e. the user's behaviour has changed little in 6 years. This user is creating categories at a rate that can exceed 100 a day[2]. DexDor (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{uw-vandal1}} or others that are available. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern tends to be: NotWith creates a category, NotWith moves articles/cats into that category, the category is CFD'ed, NotWith doesn't respond, the category gets deleted, a bot removes the category tag from pages (and during the week+ that the CFD is open NotWith has created several hundred more categories). Nowhere in that pattern is any edit actually reverted so a template saying "I undid one or more of your recent contributions" isn't appropriate. Note: Some of NotWith's CFDs from a while ago (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_29#Category:Reptiles_of_Metropolitan_France and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_3#Category:Fauna_of_Jersey) have not yet been closed. DexDor (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is not an appropriate action and tagging look in Category:Standardised user warning templates or here for something better. I elected to not block since I was not comfortable with the warnings I saw. That does not mean another administrator would have the same problems. I just checked and there are no new warings on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all – I would support the rollback of all Notwith's edits. Oculi (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting tetrapod categories. Vertebrate of country catgories have the same problem as the tetrapod categories (i.e., an unnecessary step in the category tree that is unlikely to ever have more than 5 subcategories). I'd also suggest deleting the vertebrate categories and upmerging everything to Fauna of country categories. Most of the vertebrate categories seem to have also been created by NotWith. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 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:Film Director & Producer[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a mistaken creation. The only content is correctly categorized under Category:Dutch film producers and Category:Dutch film directors. Tassedethe (talk) 20:55, 2 November 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:Philips Sports Manager of the Year navigational boxes[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. If there are ever more templates that could be in this category, in can be recreated at that time. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for one template only. Not a beneficial category in any way. SFB 14:43, 2 November 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:Cornettists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as duplicate; redirect to Category:Cornett players. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete (Speedy deletion?). There has been a category Category:Cornett players for same purpose. --Tijd-jp (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this is a potential target where the reader may not be aware of the normal name. Should be emptied and kept as a redirect. SFB 00:13, 4 November 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.

Réunionnais people[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_6#Category:People_from_Réunion, which upheld Category:People from Réunion as the main category over "Réunionnais people", I propose we move the descending categories to match that format. This is done on the basis that Reunion is a sub-region of France, so should be treated in the same way as Category:People from Paris, for example, which contains Category:Clergy from Paris‎ etc. SFB 11:03, 2 November 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_November_2&oldid=1074813795"