Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Category:Full Members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences[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 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is problematic on the WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:N grounds. The organization in question, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (Russian abbreviation RAEN) appears to be a weird hybrid between a vanity press and a vehicle for promoting pseudoscience. See the references in the WP article on the subject; plus a couple of extra refs in English here [1], [2]. The 'academy' does not provide a list of its members at its official website [3], nor does it publish regular press releases about elections of new members. So it is hard to verify the fact that somebody is a member. Membership in this academy does not confer notability, so it is hard to see what useful purpose the existence of the current category serves. On the other hand, given the association of this topic with pseudo-science, adding someone's name to this category can be viewed as derogatory, creating WP:BLP problems. E.g. I just removed this category from the Yakov Sinai page, where the addition of this category was not supported by any WP:RS. Nor could I find any sources after quite a bit of internet searching, both in English and in Russian. For a famous mathematician like Sinai, having been listed as a member of RAEN could indeed be viewed as derogatory piece of information. In fact, Sinai's CV at his own webpage does not list being a member of RAEN, while it lists memberships in various other academies. So I strongly suspect that he is not actually a member of RAEN, and yet his inclusion into this category went unchallenged for some 3 years. All in all, the category seems to create more problems than it's worth, particularly in view of WP:BLP concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the organization doesn't publish a list of "full members" this category lacks verifiability. No opinion on the other concerns of the nominator. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just for being non-defining to the individual involved. The negative connotations of it and the lack of official membership lists would kill the category if it was defining, but it is non-defining to begin with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Even if we has a reliable source on who are members, membership would not be defining. We have a category for the Royal Society, because membership is restricted and is only offered to the most distinguished scientists. However other scientific bodies give membership to anyone, or anyone with certain qualifications (such as a degree in their subject), so that we should not have categories for these. In this case the body concerned is apparently engaged in pseudoscience, and is even less deserving of a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 31 December 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:Musicals by the Robert J. Sherman[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 05:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name is a typo at best. 86.161.146.60 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 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:American businesspeople by family[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 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Others in Category:Business families by country only have one level per country, not these two levels. The nominated category is in Category:American businesspeople and the parent is in Category:American socialites, but I can't see a helpful distinction here. They should be merged, and the target should be added into Category:American businesspeople. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unneeded level of category. Does anyone know if there is a way to figure out how many categories Wikipedia has. Some days I fear it may exceed the number of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There is no merit in the second level of categorisation. I too can see no difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 31 December 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:Populated places by year of establishment subcats[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) 07:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

other similar categories

Rationalle: Per Category:Populated places by year of establishment, which says:

Where reliable foundation dates exist, articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1300s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier. Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category.

And these categories aren't necessary to keep their parents at a reasonable size - even the 13th century category would only be around 150 pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly Support/Alternate Upmerge for 1200s In general I support this nomination, now that I've clicked through the articles and see how small they are. I would upmerge the 13th century (1200-1299) by decade though based on the current size and update the category description.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger to centuries and to decades for the 1300s as stated. RevelationDirect, are you suggesting adding decades for the 13th century as well? I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd suggest we discuss a split separately and first agree on removing the individual years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Nothing will keep us from splitting in the future in the unlikely event categories like Category:1474 establishments get too large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There clearly has to be a point at which we move from century categories to decade categories; I would not object to the point chosen. My only concern with the concept of when places were established in Europe is that all too often the date given is the first occurrence in documents. In England, the first mention of 80 or even 90% of villages is in Domesday Book in 1086. However, it would be false to say that the villages were established in that year. Most were no doubt some centuries old, but have no surviving earlier mention. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I share Peterkingiron's concern, probably the only way to tackle this problem is to purge the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the date of "establishment" is somewhat distinct from the clear line in biographies of "birth". While records may not be preserved, or their accuracy may be questioned, there is a real birth date. Establishment of a settlement is what? The first person to have settled there? (if so, would that include only the people who now occupy the place, or does New York City go back to the Lenape people's, or their predecessors' settlement?) The first group of folks settling there together? (same issue) The start of continuous settlement there? (same issue) The first (semi-)permanent structure constructed there? The first governmental acknowledgement of the place? The first mention in documents? The date of "establishment" purported in such documents? Incorporation of the place - which may have occurred several times, once as a village, another as a town, another as a municipality, another as a city? As one goes further back in time, these issues make any positive categorization on when a place was established beyond a fairly wide range unlikely to be verifiable or meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2016 (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:Songs with multiple music videos[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 05:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The number of videos for a song is not a defining aspect of the song. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The songs being grouped here do not have much in common and are unlikely so this category is unlikely to aid navigation.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am wondering how somebody would argue this category could be defining! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' As being non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-defining part of a song. AnemoneProjectors 13:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- clearly a trivial feature. Many songs have cover versions by others than their initial promoters. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 31 December 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:Mayors of Statesboro, Georgia[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 both. MER-C 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has two entries. Also upmerge entries to Mayors of places in Georgia (U.S. state) ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 28 December 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_December_28&oldid=1138408404"