Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

26th-century BC deaths[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 century categories per Alternative below. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete the first four categories per WP:SMALLCAT, one article per category. No need to upmerge, because the first three articles are already in another branch of the tree of Category:26th-century BC people while the article in Category:26th-century BC deaths shouldn't be in this tree anyway (not a defining characteristic List of bog bodies). After deleting these first four categories all the next parent categories become empty. There are now no less than 11 categories for only four articles, this is altogether really a poor example of WP:OC. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delete these, then articles like Sneferu will have no year category. How do we solve that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going through these categories makes me dizzy: you go 2 or 3 levels deep just to find 1 article. It's hard to see how the current structure aids navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:26th-century BC deaths and merge the rest into it. The inclusion of a redirect for one bog body may be appropriate. Annual categories at distant periods are a menace (rather than an aid) to navigation, butn they should be merged up to something that might get populated. It may be that 3rd millenium BC death categories should also be deleted, but that ought to be left for another day, which other annual and decade categories have been eliminated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:26th-century BC deaths and upmerge the contents into this, per Peterkingiron's recommendation. A century category is useful, at the very least. Sionk (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, the alternative proposal by some editors above is as follows:
Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency with the next century proposals, which have already been closed as merge/delete in line with the alternative proposal of this nomination, I would recommend to close this nomination also according to the alternative proposal. We then have consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 4 May 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.

27th-century BC deaths[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 century categories per Alternative below. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete the first two categories per WP:SMALLCAT, one article per category. No need to upmerge, because the respective two articles are already in another branch of the tree of Category:27th-century BC people. After deleting these first two categories all the next parent categories become empty. There are now no less than 9 categories for only two articles, this is altogether really a poor example of WP:OC. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needlessly specific and not serving any purpose in navigation between articles. Agree that century-people category is sufficient enough for all contents. SFB 22:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Too small and little chance for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:27th-century BC deaths, at least for the moment. Merge the rest into it. We may never get these well populated and I am open to a future deletion of all the century categories, but that should be a deiscussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:27th-century BC deaths and upmerge the contents of the others into this, per Peterkingiron's recommendation. A century category is useful, at the very least. Sionk (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, the alternative proposal by some editors above is:
Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close according to alternative proposal, see remark on 26th century BC, just one nomination above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 4 May 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:Actors in the Nigerian Military Coup of February 13, 1976[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. MER-C 12:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category. I can't see the difference between "actors" and "participants" in the coup. Missed this category in the discussion on 3 April. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:11, 16 April 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.

Cricket centurions[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. MER-C 12:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion I raised previously at WT:CRIC (but I then forgot about). I think there's a difference between a notable achievement and a defining attribute to the individual. This is the former, not the latter. This is what I posted previously: "From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics, "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". I'm not saying that scoring a century isn't notable, but is it something to categorise an article by? Do people really think of Geraint Jones and think - "oh yes, that player who score a century in Test cricket for England!" (no disrepect to Mr Jones, he is a fine player)." Triggered from a recent memory jogging edit to Jermaine Blackwood, who scored a century yesterday. Notable (to him)? Of course. Defining? No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - Per nominator, making a century isn't a defining characteristic of these individuals. – PeeJay 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unnecessary over-categorisation. Dee03 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for over-categorisation as above. Taking Geraint Jones as a continuing example and given that he is an unusual case, his "defining characteristics" include being a 21st century cricketer who is a wicket-keeper, has played first-class cricket for Kent and Gloucestershire, Test cricket for England and LOI for PNG; and therefore is unusual as a player who represented two countries at international level. The fact that he has scored a Test century is an achievement but listing everyone who has done that in a category (or taken 5wI or a hat-trick, etc.) does not add value. Jack | talk page 19:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify A perfectly useful piece of information, but this facet is not so defining that one would need to navigate between such biographical articles themselves on this basis. A list format covers this information in a much more satisfying manner. SFB 22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists for each of the countries covered already exist. – PeeJay 09:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What you lot already said. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom/above. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:54, 21 April 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:Sovereigns of Vatican City[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. MER-C 12:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. All these sovereigns are also in Category:Popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious delete exactly as nom says. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - silly. Neutralitytalk 04:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Utterly unnecessary. A "Popes" category can directly be in a sovereigns category without the intervention of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. I assume the category was created in good faith to ensure Category:Heads of state by country had an entry for Vatican City –Category:Popes doesn't seem like it should be included there, given hardly any popes have actually been the Vatican's head of states. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By far the most popes have been head of state though, namely of Papal States. So I'm supporting Peterkingiron here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 21 April 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.

University of South Alabama athletics[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. MER-C 07:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The University of South Alabama has transitioned away from "Lady Jaguars" as a women's sports nickname. All women's teams have been known simply as "Jaguars" since 2013–14; most actually made the change earlier. A look around the university's official athletics site, usajaguars.com, will confirm that all women's teams have made said change. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the categories within the South Alabama athletics tree that contain the name "South Alabama Jaguars and Lady Jaguars" are the subject of a speedy CFR request. Those are covered by speedy criterion C2D, since the main article for the athletic program was moved to South Alabama Jaguars some time ago.
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/2015_April_16&oldid=1138408233"