Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 21

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

August 21[edit]

Category:In-house software[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) 19:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category doesn't need to be separate. If in-house software is defined as software used internally and not available for the users outside of the corporation, this category will not have many entries. Gpeja (talk) 22:51, 21 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:Technology in the United Kingdom[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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This one and Technology in Wales seems to be the only ones of this type. The Scince and technology categories are good enough. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of adding the Wales category to the nomination. DexDor (talk) 06:12, 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.

Visitor attractions[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 all with rename propagating recursively down the category tree to change all categories of the form "Visitor attractions" to "Tourist attractions". Please have patience with me during the renaming process as much work is required. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the categories I have already moved, I am nominating the remaining categories to be moved per a comment on my talk page requesting that I not proceed with the rename unilaterally. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match lead article Tourist attraction. I floated this proposal at Category talk:Visitor attractions where it gained only a little attention, but at least there was not a consensus against it. Two previous CfD discussions (linked on that page) were for deletion and resulted in consensus to "keep", but the naming was not discussed. "Tourist attraction" is by far the more common name outside Wikipedia, featured in books over 20 times more than "visitor attraction": see Ngram. Help in nominating more sub-cats would be welcome, otherwise the rest of the tree (and the lists, etc) could be speedily renamed if this gains consensus.

– Fayenatic London 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed name is certainly superior to what's there now, but I'm not sure either describe the actual contents.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category is a mess. It currently (via subcats) includes articles such as Llanwern steelworks and Vasyugan Swamp (which make no mention of attracting visitors/tourists). It even includes subcats such as Category:Swiss poker players and Category:Works set in castles and fortresses. I've removed Category:Beaches (which includes beaches with no public access and even beaches on other planets) from it several times. It is also a mess because of how it interacts with landmarks categories ("landmark" being used as a synonym for "visitor attraction" - see Category:Landmarks by country). IMO, it should be limited to articles about things specifically created as a visitor attraction (e.g. theme parks) - or even deleted (but that would have to start at the bottom of the category tree). DexDor (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Note: Subcats (e.g. Category:Visitor attractions in Benin) have not been included in the nomination, but could be done by a subsequent CFD if this is successful. DexDor (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comments of RevelationDirect and DexDor got me looking at the whole California sub-tree of these and we have numerous items in the subcategories that are unlikely to be "attractions" since they are not open to either visitors or tourists. While I can imagine certain inaccessible things can draw tourists (the Royal Family in England draws tourists, it's said, but I guess I can't just drop in for tea with the Queen or even pay an admission charge to shake her hand), it's not the usual idea. What often is the "attraction" tends not necessarily to be article-worthy: The Weather in Nice is Nice, or is rather subjective Colorado Amendment 64 (legalizing canabis) or Prostitution in Nevada or Oregon Ballot Measure 16 (1994) (death with dignity law) seem to draw some folks in, but I don't think these are captured in the tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor. Like some of the other commenters, the all the categories seem WP:SPAM no matter what it is named. But at least "tourism" is a recognizable subset under "Economy." "Visitor" is too vague to file. Please keep me in mind for further improvements. Student7 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I take for granted that these categories need to be purged, that's basically independent of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 29 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:Woman presidents of 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: rename to Category:Women presidents of organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to either Category:Women presidents of organizations or Category:Female presidents of organizations. Wikipedia does not use the singular form "woman" to gender a category; we use either the plural "women" or the adjective "female". Both of those are valid in different contexts depending on which one better fits real-world usage in that field — but Wikipedia categories are expressed in the plural, not the singular, so the "woman" form is unequivocally incorrect. Not sure which alternative would be better, however, so I'm leaving that part up to consensus to determine. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 21 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.

Input Wanted on Category:Islamists by nationality[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 action needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of content of Category:Islamists by nationality. At present content follows a format shown in Category:Afghan Islamists. While there may, in some cases, be problems in certainly locating people, I was wondering about the use of formats ‎Category:Islamists in Afghanistan and Category:Islamists from Afghanistan. In the case of the UK we currently use both Category:British Islamists and Category:English Islamists (and guidance may also be helpful here on the use of most suitable categorisation).

Currently Younes Tsouli is listed even though he did not have British citizenship. Abu Qatada is not listed even though he might be helpfully added to into either Category:Islamists in England or Category:Islamists in Britain. Many Islamists may have been in Britain but are now overseas. I think that this format would also fit well with the contents of Category:Islamism by country but would welcome any thoughts.

On a similar theme perhaps categories such as Category:Al-Qaeda members by nationality could be renamed as Category:Al-Qaeda members by national origin so as to present Category:Afghan al-Qaeda members as Category:al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan

GregKaye 09:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect appreciated and thanks also to you or whoever who added the heading. I'll post a link on those pages. GregKaye 16:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help with both. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 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:National Association of Schools of Music[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) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a school/college is "connected to" this association is often/always a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. E.g. articles like University of Michigan Library don't mention it at all and in articles like Cedarville University this association is just one item in a list. This could be listified (e.g. to National Association of Schools of Music), but it would probably be better to create any such list directly from a RS. Note: We have categories such as Category:Music schools in Pennsylvania to categorize those schools that are specifically music schools. Example of previous similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_22#Category:Million.2B. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 21 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:M4 corridor[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 04:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category (currently) puts articles such as Hounslow under a Wales category and articles such as Ynystawe under an England category. We categorize places by what county they are in and don't need an incomplete, overlapping, poorly defined scheme of categorizing places by which motorway(s) they are near. Categories should be for grouping together articles on similar topics, but this category groups togther articles such as Morriston Hospital and Heathrow Airport Central bus station. Some of the articles (e.g. Llanedi) don't even mention the M4. DexDor (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is particularly ridiculous to put eg Category:People from Slough into a Wales category via category inclusions. Slough is indeed in the M4 corridor but this is incidental rather than defining. Slough is also under the Heathrow flight path, mentioned in Betjeman poems, doesn't rhyme with 'rough', and is doubtless on or near other roads, rivers. canals or railways etc etc. Oculi (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 29 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:Women's chess 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: administrative close: categories were not tagged with Template:cfr. There seems to be a consensus here that "women's" should be changed to "female". There is no consensus to delete Category:Women's chess players by nationality and its subcategories. If users want to follow through with the rename, all nominated categories should be tagged with Template:cfr and listed in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was renamed without discussion. There is no game called "women's chess", they play by the same rules and play in the same competitions as men do. Separate competitions and titles for female players exist, but they are relatively uncommon and female players generally compete against male players in non-segregated events. Girls and boys play chess too, often very well, which is why "female" rather than "women" is recommended. If this category is justified, then, it should be called Category:Female chess players, not Category:Women's chess players.
Some may argue in favour of deleting the category altogether, however in view of the well-established history of female-only competitions, and the relative rarity of strong female players, I am in favour of including a Category:Female chess players, just as there is a Category:Female poker players. Note also that there is a page List of female chess players, so clearly many people believe that this is a notable topic in its own right, and therefore a notable category.
Subdividing female chess players by nationality is not justified and results in a large number of underpopulated categories. Category:Irish women's chess players, for example, definitely fails WP:OVERCAT as a non-notable intersection. See also this discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal as outlined by the nominator, per my comments in the original discussion on WT:CHESS. Cobblet (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of Category:Women's chess players per nom. I would ideally like to see only "by nationality" subcats with 5 or 10+ members, but I don't think we do things that way. Otherwise keep them - they all fit into other national trees, & are our standard way of doing things - why should women's chess be any different? Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the national categories are retained, they should be renamed to "Irish female chess players" etc MaxBrowne (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 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:Interstate 805[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) 14:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only 1 article in the category, Interstate 805, with little room for growth. Unlike the main Interstates routes, the 3-digit axuilliary interstates typically do not have their own category. No objection to recreating later though if there are 5 or so articles to populate this with. The 1 article is already well categorized so this can be a straight delete rather than an upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified AkiStuart as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject U.S. Roads. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per nom. –Fredddie™ 00:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough items to warrant a category. Dough4872 01:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Normally, I would be wanting to keep pages like this, but I agree: only one article means the category should be deleted for now. I wholeheartedly also agree that the category could and should eventually be restarted later on. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was just about to nominate it after spotting it in the I-5 category. SounderBruce 02:12, 21 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:Anti-ISIL factions[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The majority of anti-ISIL factions fight in both Iraq and Syria, and many of those also fight in Lebanon and Turkey. It seems a little silly to divide them this way if you ask me. Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 21 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_21&oldid=1209062261"