Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29[edit]

Category:Garage door opener manufacturers[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: procedural close, CFD template was not subst'd and therefore did not link to this page.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. only two entries. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:50, 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:Tulsa Roughnecks 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. So it will not be confused with Category:Tulsa Roughnecks (1993–2000) players or Category:Tulsa Roughnecks FC players Joeykai (talk) 20:19, 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:Get a Life (TV series)[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) 06:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's the show itself, a list of episodes and the theme song (which really has nothing to do with the show). The other two articles are inspired by the show. Everything here can be summed up in the article for the show. Fuddle (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Not enough spinoff content to justify an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete My cutoff for a category is 5 articles and this one only has 4, not counting the unrelated REM song. No objection to recreating later if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:35, 30 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:Hyperlocal[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 for now, without prejudice to a deletion nomination in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Hyperlocal" is primarily an adjective, not a noun — something can be a "hyperlocal" website, or a "hyperlocal" newspaper, or a "hyperlocal" app, or "hyperlocal" content, but "hyperlocal" is too unspecific to be used as a category name in and of itself — the category needs to properly specify hyperlocal what. And even if it can be used as a noun, this would still need to be pluralized as "hyperlocals" rather than sitting in the singular — but I still believe that it needs the extra clarifier to denote the what. (And that's if we even need it at all, which I'm not entirely convinced that we do.) Definitely needs renaming, though I'm entirely amenable if somebody's got a deletion argument to offer instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 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.

Hare Krishnas[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) 22:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles for each of these categories. Ultimately the proposed mergers for these nationalities makes the by-nationality parent category also pretty small (only the American, British/English and Indian categories will stay as a subcategory, according to this proposal) so that the by-nationality category can be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Small categories with little chance of expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 2 September 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:Vaishnavites 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, unnecessary category layer, as it only contains two child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 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.

Shaivites[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one nationality with a significant amount of Shaivites, namely the Indian nationality, for other nationalities a separate Shaivite category is not meaningful. By the way, there is no need to upmerge the country categories to the second parent Category:Shaivites because all the articles are already in Category:Saivite religious leaders (or in Category:Shaivite religious leaders after speedy rename). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 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:Imelda[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) 06:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created by Imeldific (talk · contribs) an WP:SPA account who only edits Imelda Marcos topics; by pagemove of Category:Imelda Marcos. The pagemove was reverted, but the category remains. The main article at Imelda is not about Imelda Marcos, and the user has been campaigning to make "Imelda" mean Imelda Marcos on various article talk pages A/B without success. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That does not give a person WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over her first name alone. The reality is that nobody outside the Philippines would ever refer to her as just "Imelda" without the surname "Marcos", if they expected anybody in their listening audience to actually know who they were talking about. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From The Steel Butterfly Still Soars. The New York Times. October 6, 2012: “When I listen to the giddy beat of “Here Lies Love,” I can’t help but recall Imelda’s optimistic take on events when I interviewed her in Malacanang Palace in 1985, as the “People Power” protests were gaining force and just a few months before she was forced to flee.”
  • From My afternoon with Imelda Marcos. Fortune. January 9, 2014.: Imelda claims the media unjustly blackened her reputation and the legacy of the Marcos regime. “The media is more powerful than the gun,” she says, using one of her favorite expressions. “The gun can only kill you up to your grave but the media can kill you beyond the grave.”Imeldific (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Imelda" in the body of an article after you have already clarified in the introduction of the article that you're specifically talking about Imelda Marcos does not prove that you could ever just say "Imelda" to an American, without providing any clarification whatsoever of which specific Imelda you meant, and have them understand what the hell you were talking about. It is always possible, for absolutely any person in the world, to refer to them by first name alone after a full-name reference earlier in the same piece has already established who you're actually talking about — that fact does not prove, in and of itself, that they're widely known by their first name alone if the surname has not been specified earlier in the same piece. So you're not proving that Imelda Marcos is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the unsurnamed name "Imelda", any more than Stephen Harper could legitimately claim to be located at just "Stephen" or David Cameron could legitimately be moved to just "David". Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about Barack, Obama, Oprah, Mandela, Lula, Che, Mao, and Napoleon? Where's the proof otherwise? Imeldific (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not categories. You do realize we are discussing a category here right? You are at categories for discussion. Please read the rules about categories. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obama, Mandela and Mao are surnames, not given names, and thus have nothing to do with the matter at hand; neither does Lula, as it's a nickname which is no part whatsoever of his legal name. And as for the others, it's certainly true some people exist who are so much more massively superfamous than any other person who's ever had that name, and thus can be referred to by first name alone and still have it correctly understood who's being talked about even if their full name wasn't already specified in the lede — which is the part of the equation that you keep ignoring here, because none of your sources go straight to calling her just "Imelda" without establishing that they're referring to Imelda Marcos in their first reference to her. But that fact does not, in and of itself, prove that every person on earth can realistically be referred to that way — go ahead and tell me which people I'm talking about if I just say Maureen, Chris, Benjamin and Denise without ever giving you any surname at all. And we'll never mind that all of those mononyms that you singled out exist as redirects to a person whose article is located at their full name; none of them is subbing as the main title of the person's article. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – ridiculous redirect. Oculi (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imelda Marcos: about 5,270 results (0.02 sec)
Imelda Staunton: about 440 results (0.03 sec)
Imelda Marcos: about 9,890 results (0.37 seconds)
Imelda Satunton: about 7,260 results (0.28 seconds). Imeldific (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 1 September 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:Cities that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match[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. (PS: User:10-9-8 Up-we-go! and User:Little Irish Fellow have been blocked as sockpuppets of another user. In this discussion, certainly no effort was made to disguise their connection!) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If there is any point to this category, I can't see it.  Sandstein  04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of Berlin, Paris etc. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Alex2006 (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (non-defining); possibly listify. fgnievinski (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (very defining). Each city is proud to boast this event and when it is the FIFA World Cup Final, the world is watching and the world remembers. 10-9-8 Up-we-go! (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not have similar categories to group cities which have hosted the Olympic Games, for example, and that's not one iota less defining than this would be. The cities are already textlinked from the relevant World Cup articles as it is, so there's no context being lost — but it does not constitute a WP:DEFINING point of commonality between otherwise unrelated cities. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you are wrong, there is absolutely no comparison between the FIFA World Cup Final and the Olympics. The Olympics only create an illusion that they are "the biggest thing since sliced bread" among the crowds that take an interest and watch. The problem is that when games are happening, there is in-your-face coverage meaning you have to work hard to "avoid" it. The flame passes your town and there is unnecessary crowd control from the police because the plebs have all ran out to get a glimpse (like an aristocrat wedding), the event is grinded into the front pages of the papers and made the top headline ahead of even sport itself. But nobody thinks for one moment what life is like for those not interested, their life becomes disrupted because they cannot get from A to B peacefully and if they mention it to one of the Johnny-Come-Lately "followers" that they are not interested, the "follower" considers the normal person dull or subhuman. But Football UNIFIES the world properly, from the third world where they tune into radios to the palaces of the Sheikhs with so much money they don't know what to do - EVERYBODY is interested, and if you mention Mexico City to anyone old enough, straight away he'll tell you, "ah, 1970 & 1986!!! Maradona!". 10-9-8 Up-we-go! (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most frankly bizarre WP:POV essay I've ever seen on Wikipedia — which is saying something, because I've been contributing here for a decade and I've seen some howlers in my day. You don't care about the Olympics, that's fine — but a lot of people in the world do, and it's not our job to reflect your point of view and dismiss theirs. And trust me, I have personally talked about Mexico City with plenty of people who were "old enough", without having a World Cup game or Diego Maradona ever come up in the conversation at all — your experience is coloured by the fact that you're passionate about the sport and talking to other people who are passionate about the sport, and is most certainly not universal truth. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, and MILLIONS upon MILLIONS do not care about the olympics - you are just another one of those "olympic freaks". Then idea that 4 billion saw the London opening ceremony is pushed largely by the media which was billing it as the greatest thing before it even happened. Even then there is another 3 billion unaccounted for. FOOTBALL unites the world, OLYMPICS is for a load of jumped-up buttlicking creeps. I can't help it if the Mexicans you met don't know that their country hosted the FIFA twice in their lifetimes. But it's their problem. Little Irish Fellow (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am by no means whatsoever any sort of "Olympic freak" — I couldn't care less about them if I tried, actually. But a lot of other people in the world who aren't me or you do care, and the fact that we aren't among them gets no special weight under Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules — our role is not to dismiss those people as "freaks" or "jumped-up buttlicking creeps", but to simply and neutrally document the fact that they are a thing that many people do care about. And I didn't say that anybody I'd met didn't know that Mexico had hosted the World Cup, either — the assertion I was responding to was a claim that it's completely impossible to ever have any conversation at all about Mexico without the fact of the World Cup coming up in that conversation, which is patently false. It is entirely possible for a person to be fully aware that Mexico City has hosted the World Cup, without that fact necessarily coming up in every single conversation they ever have about Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 1 September 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:Literature[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) 11:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: there is great confusion with "Category:Publications by ..."; see also literary works redirect (literature) fgnievinski (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publications are not necessarily literature. EG a motor magazine or a newspaper is a publication but is not literature. Oculi (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Literature" is a general topic category which is meant as a broad overview of the subject; it contains very general articles like literary adaptation, foreword and proverb, and is not meant to directly contain individual works of literature — there are already more specific categories for those, such as Category:Novels, Category:Poems and on and so forth. Category:Literary works could potentially be created as a new category to sit between Category:Literature and those other categories, if desired, but that would be a subcategory of Category:Literature rather than a replacement for it — Category:Literature has many relevant and legitimate subtopics (writers, literary festivals, literary awards, etc.) that are not works, and would lose a necessary parent category if this were renamed as proposed. Oppose renaming. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most significant literary works already have their own category trees. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 2 September 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:Creative works[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--Aervanath (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per redirect creative work (intellectual work) fgnievinski (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the nom merely created that redirect. - jc37 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there was no main article before and, based on your comments below, we all agree that these terms are closely related. I think it's a legitimate redirect, at least as a placeholder. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Creative works (as defined as works of art) are a sub-type (hence a sub-cat) of intellectual works. I believe there is a legal distinction here. See also Intellectual property law. - jc37 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order to distinguish between the two for categorizing articles, it would really help to have a main article for both. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question applying to both categories: is 'creative works' or 'intellectual works' a defining characteristic of the content of these categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. - jc37 06:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was initially under the impression that the adjectives "Creative" and "Intellectual" reflected some kind of classification of works but that's apparently not the case because Category:Intellectual works is the very top category of all the "Works" set categories. I still find this category structure confusing. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a top Category:Works, with "Creative works" and "Intellectual works" under it that would only be topic categories rather than set categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_2#Category:Works - jc37 20:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's funny because the situation now is different than in the 2006 discussion. In the discussion the top category has been renamed from Works to Creative works, but meanwhile Creative Works has become a subcategory of (Intellectual) works. This development confirms that it's confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 4 October 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:Aviation history of Ukraine[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, resulting in keep. At close, the category contained three subcategories and three articles, so I'm assuming that the !votes for deletion/upmerging would be withdrawn since the basis for them has changed. If I am wrong about this, please re-nominate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. Conceptually this category is fine but there is only one article in this category and it doesn't belong there. (Igor Sikorsky built aircraft after he moved to Russia and founded Sikorsky Aircraft after he moved to the U.S.; he is already categorized as from Ukraine in multiple categories.) For a comparison, take a look at the Category:Aviation history of Japan sister cat which actually groups things about Japan. No objection to recreating later if more content appears.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Sanya3 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Ukraine. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would we also include history from the Ukrainian SSR? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes sure, Ukrainian SSR is part of the history of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent categories, rather than delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn I'm glad @MilborneOne: was more able than me to populate it. Note that I removed the original article. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I miss the point of withdrawing. The category isn't currently any better populated than it was when nominated, is it? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: It's gone from 1 article that doesn't belong to 1 article and a sub-category that do belong. A low bar perhaps, but still improvement. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely a low bar, especially since one of the two entries is a subcategory of its own. I would still go for upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, we can proceed so you don't have to renominate. Please note that I am now Neutral as the nominator. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a useful category and many other countries have a similar category as well. As one of the few countries that has a full airplane manufacturing cycle, Ukraine has plenty of aviation history to speak of. Added category "Defunct airlines of Ukraine". Igor Sikorsky page should be included as well, as he is from Ukraine and his early work was done there.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 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:Educational institutions of the Suriname Province of the Moravian Church[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) 02:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. There are no articles about Moravian schools in Suriname. None! There is currently one article in the category, but it doesn't belong. This category has been around for 7 years so the growth potential here seems pretty low.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Arb as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Suriname. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_29&oldid=1074814385"