Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:Criminal justice reformers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective cat (also arguably non-definining for many); includes a "grab bag" of people, many of whom have little in common. "Criminal justice reform" is a broad concept, sometimes hazily defined. There's also overlap with the narrower (and more objective/specific) cats, such as Category:Anti–death penalty activists, etc. Neutralitytalk 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because there are several categories, about 12 or more, that use "reformer" which is supposedly subjective. So, why is "criminal justice reformers" different? Maybe some people need to be removed, but deletion is not the remedy. None of the words in this cat are used in "subjective cat" explanation. Please better explain your rationale. Moreover, the death penalty is a very, very narrow category of criminal justice systems.--JumpLike23 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JumpLike23, you're the creator of the cat, right?
My point is that other categories are significantly narrower, and thus there's less room for dispute. Meanwhile, "criminal justice reformer" is hazy - who is worthy of the label? Most people will claim to be in favor of some sort of reform, but differ entirely as to focus and specifics. It is for this reason that we don't have Category:Education reformers, or Category:Healthcare reformers (even though we have Category:Education reform and Category:Healthcare reform. Neutralitytalk 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your serious response. But please be specific--just as you want in your categories. How are criminal justice reformers, still more non-defining, subjective and broad than British reformers, Chinese reformers, housing reformers, monetary reformers, vietnamese reformers, etc.? Thanks. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just note our article Reform defines "reform" as "Reform means the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc." So anyone who proposes, advocates, or votes for any change to the criminal justice system is in Category:Criminal justice reformers, which makes it useless for over-inclusion, but that's not how the category is used, rather it seems to have purely subjective limitations which are hidden from the user. Draco (lawgiver) certainly advocated amendment of the criminal justice system, but alas he doesn't seem to meet a modern (kinder, gentler) notion of reformer, so he doesn't get included. Subjectivity at work... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46 but why are the other reform categories different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by jumplike23 (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:Railway stations opened in 2016[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) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: obviously the two categories have the same purpose, but the phrasing of the target category is more correct. This nomination is related to this other discussion that is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 17 August 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:Railway stations opened in 2022[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: obviously the two categories have the same purpose, but the phrasing of the target category is more correct. This is just slightly different than the nomination above because it seems that these stations aren't under construction yet, they are just proposed. There are two separate trees for under construction (Category:Railway stations under construction) and proposed (Category:Proposed railway stations by date). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless the exact name of the category, a distinction is being made between the idea (the proposal) and the start of the implementation of the idea (the construction). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- All three stations are on Haymarket Line, which is currently the subject of a feasibility study, with a view to construction in 2017 and opening in 2022. All the stations in question at present fail WP:CRYSTAL and so must the category. The article on the line is probably worth keeping in view of the feasibility study, but that is all. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 20 August 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:Former Trustee Royal National Theatre[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the one article currently in this category. See essay WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 05:46, 17 August 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:Day School[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect capitalisation (and not plural). No parent categories (indicating that the creator does not understand wp categorisation). Thousands (millions?) of schools would belong in these categories. WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both presumably nearly every school is a day school so looking for other day schools while looking at an article in such category would be unlikely and not useful. As for "mixed school", so many schools these days admit both sexes and are therefore "mixed" (I think this is a neologism for "co-educational" or such, so without reading the category description). I think "mixed" schools had different meanings in the United States before Brown v. Board. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These characteristics are to common to be the basis of a useful category. The converse of day school is boarding school. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 20 August 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:People who suffer from Islamophobia[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: BLP nightmare. We don't have any other "People who suffer from..." categories. The one article currently in this category could be moved to Category:Critics of Islam. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 05:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad to set a precedent for such a BLP problem. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I deleted the one entry per WP:BLP, before anyone restores it, better find a damn good source that she "suffer[s] from Islamophobia". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- This is a potential ATTACK category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potentially libelous and a BLP problem. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am less worried about the BLP proble, than this is an attempt to recreate the deleted category about Racists. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 22 August 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:Non-photographic Biology-related Illustrations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All files in these categories are on Commons, so these are superseded by categories there. —innotata 02:28, 17 August 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:Singles certified by the Canadian Recording Industry Association[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: no consensus, though there seems to be some sense that a broader nomination could be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
other similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Based on this and this discussion, that a single has been designated in this fashion should be considered a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - absurd rationale to exclude these categories (which are populated automatically by the single's performance) but keep other country's chart rankings as categories. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument that all the categories under Category:Certified singles and Category:Certified albums should be listed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken to a centralized discussion, or, yes, all should be nominated. Why should one or two of these be kept over any others? As noted, similar categories have been deleted and consensus is building to suggest that the entire scheme be too. Doing these one country at a time is not productive. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prior discussion have been on a country-by-country basis because a single nomination of every single category would be a gigantic mess. This is typcially how changes are done, individualized discussions with subparts and then more and more as time progresses. Otherwise, any centralized discussion would probably need to be at WPT:ALBUMS or WPT:MUSIC or somewhere but may be WP:MUSIC-reader focused and then we come back to CFD and it's a different view and back and forth or other things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem by country by country is when you get to US and UK, where participation may be greater and the consensus ends being to keep because a few more parties are interested in the fate of those categories over the Canadian, Mexican, and Australian ones. A centralized discussion can be in the form of an RfD, in which non-music readers can be notified and encouraged to participate. I'm going to say Keep for now since there's no reason for this to exist when others do with a strong recommendation for a centralized discussion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without having an opinion about the content of the discussion, it may be a good idea to add the United States categories to this nomination and to relist the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - e.g. for Stolen Dance the level of sales in Canada is a non-defining characteristic. This information should be in the text/tables of the article (and possibly in WikiData). DexDor (talk) 18:00, 17 August 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:Chester F.C. templates[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 by Nominator based on the feedback below. (Note: Procedural closure by a non-administrator.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR JMHamo (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Note: Technical closure by a non-administrator.)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.. not needed JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Chester are now a professional club. Plenty of other clubs in a similar position that have the same page.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While a number of templates exist in this category, it makes sense to keep the category so the templates are kept together. – PeeJay 07:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. No matter what level a club plays at, as long as there's a number of templates it's only logical to categorise them. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the above JackErskine (talk) 10:51, 17 August 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:Barbary Coast, San Francisco[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is ill-defined, too difficult to determine whether a topic falls within it. It is being used as a synonym for "the history of early San Francisco", for "illicit San Francisco", for "weird San Francisco", for "Chinatown, San Francisco", and for "sites that are encountered along the Barbary Coast Trail" (a walking tour of the city.) Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the problem comes from the actions of the following accounts and IPs: FriscoKnight who stopped contributing a few months ago, PDFA who is a brand new single-purpose account, and 107.133.146.243 who has been adding this category for almost a year. A North Carolina IP is also involved: 2602:306:B859:2F30:3573:FA6D:5AB1:C67B. In 2013, a related category was deleted (See Category:Barbary Coast Trail) which appears to be why the current category is being misused, employed as a replacement for the deleted one. The actions of 99.122.48.32, who added the Trail category, look an awful lot like PDFA and the recent IPs.
So with all the misuse or abuse of this category, it being defined very loosely as "colorful history of early San Francisco", it should be deleted because it is too general. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The Barbary Coast was a neighborhood in San Francisco as the main article clearly shows. The articles in the category are about the neighborhood and its culture. There is no problem with this category, certainly nothing like mis-described above. Hmains (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a reasonably well-defined geographic area, and also an aspect of early SF history (and mythology). Eight of the 14 articles in this category contain "Barbary Coast" in their title. The others all have a meaningful connection to the Barbary Coast: two films set there, two later incarnations of the Barbary Coast, a Barbary Coast saloon owner, and a nearby alley notorious for brothels serving Barbary Coast clients. It all seems pretty functional and valid to me. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at the contributions of PDFA. I agree that this user (possibly a misguided member of the Native Daughters of the Golden West?) seems to be on a mission to throw every San Francisco topic into the Barbary Coast category. Thanks to Binksternet for reverting these edits. But I think the overall category remains useful and well-defined. So, it's still a keep for me. Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:52, 24 August 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_17&oldid=1138408325"