Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like Adele[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, with support for a broader discussion on the underlying principles of these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's been a long-standing consensus not to have "Wikipedians who like" specific music artist categories based on this discussion. Per Category:Wikipedians interested in music, such categories should be speedily deleted. My G4 speedy request was declined, however. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the approach to Wikipedian categories is wildly inconstant. I'm of the opinion that user categories should be based on research areas/subject specialities, but I think I'm in the minority there, given that these more recreational groupings receive quite a lot of support and seem to keep some editors happy on some level. I don't really see why bands are instantly singled out but Category:Wikipedians interested in Superman goes unchallenged for seven years, and Category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon for probably ten. Every time we go through this procedure we don't seem to get any closer to establishing what the reasons for user categorisation should be. At the moment it seems to be simply "pick off the ones with the fewest supporters", which is more like tyranny of the majority rather than a productive discussion on logic (let alone a useful or encouraging form of social interaction). Is there some place we can discuss this broader problem without having to single out a group of users every time? SFB 00:46, 1 February 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:World War I mines[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: renamed Category:Tunnel warfare in World War I: strong support for doing something, but not doing the original nom; this alt had multiple and reasonably-reasoned support. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Somewhat ambiguous in the use of mines. Also the articles are about devices that went off and not types of mines. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and maybe also consider whether some of the child articles should be removed. DexDor (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or rename to ...attacks/operations as proposed below. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 5 February 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 female songwriters[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 since larger part of the discussion addressed the size of the category, not the rationale of nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No current scheme of "songwriters by sex". Unless there is a need to diffuse Category:American songwriters by whether the writer is male or female, upmerging to the parent should suffice here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a new and little populated category, but it seems a valid extension of the category tree already found at Category:American female musicians and Category:American women writers. I also don't see how this is any different from the more specific Category:American female singer-songwriters and Category:American female composers‎, which both show the usefulness of the idea for navigation and where it fits in the tree. I hate to object partly on the basis that similar things exist, but given the logic of the nomination I think it invites such an argument. SFB 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Part of the problem is that nobody populates the damn things. Users come along, create a category which should have a massive number of contents, but they only add one article to the category. If the category survives, it often goes a very, very, very long time before any other user will add anything to it. I see this all the time—categories that were created in 2006 that should have hundreds of articles, and they have two or three in it. I think it reflects poorly upon the categorization system. If users are going to be ambitious enough to create new schemes, they should at least make some sort of effort to populate it. Otherwise, there's not really a point and such categories might as well be deleted until someone decides to do the hard work of populating them. Then they could be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no reliable sources show that all female songwriters write songs differently (and in the same way) than their male counterparts, hence division is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now it contains Category:American female singer-songwriters which is well-populated, so it looks more worth keeping, linking those to the parent Category:American women writers. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general history of all forms of writting is that women tend to be distinctive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American women songwriters to conform with Category:American women writers. We generally use the term "women" for writer categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this page is merged, another target needs to be Category:American women writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category was nominated for deletion the very day it was created. There was little opportunity given to anyone to add to it, many people do not see the usefulness in adding to a category currently nominated for deletion. I have now expanded it to over 40 articles, and there are many more that could be added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should really be the creator who populates it, at least to a reasonable degree. If a category is good enough to create, it should be good enough to populate. One issue in categorization is there are many who are keen to be category creators, and not nearly as many who are willing to be category populators. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 6 March 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:Forests in fiction[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. Perhaps a renomination would be useful after the articles all get placed in the correct category or categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, I thought the category may list real forests mentioned in fiction, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Brandmeistertalk 20:42, 31 January 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:Film actresses from Shanghai[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 as nominated and also Category:Chinese film actresses or Category:Chinese television actresses, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

This is overcategorization that is not even done with cities- New York and London - that have many times the actresses than the Shanghai categories. What type of actress is fuzzy, because their work isn't confined to just one type. Judy Dan is an example. She is categorized as a movie actress but she has a good number of television credits. ...William 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to "Actress from X" but also Category:Chinese film actresses. The type of medium in which a female actor performs is not really modified by the province which she is from. On that basis, this is not a definitive label for the subjects and readers would not expect to find such a narrow definition. The parent is barely populated now. @WilliamJE: can you please add Category:Film actresses from Sichuan‎ and Category:Television actresses from Sichuan‎ and all the rest of the province level film actress categories found under Category:Chinese actresses as the same applies there. The Chinese categories are against the country-based standard found elsewhere in Category:Film actresses by nationality. Thanks. SFB 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeI think we need to rethink the splitting of those involved in acting by medium at all. There are too many cases not only of people switching medium many times, but of people who held the same role on the stage and then in a film, or in a TV series and then a movie, or sometimes the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Actors from Shanghai No need for sex categories here, moreover many females who act for a living refer to themselves as "actors". As for where they act, I haven't been convinced that acting on stage, tv, or film - since many (most?) of today's actors do all these without retraining - is any different than the playing tennis on grass vs clay, which distinction for categorization was done away with long ago, or acting in drama vs. comedy, etc. which could be argued as a more intrinsic difference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Actors and actresses can be subcategorized by film/television/stage in conjunction with nationality, but there's no need to do that at the city level. I could potentially be convinced to agree with John Pack Lambert and Carlossuarez that we should consider upmerging all "individual medium of acting" categories to the main actors or actresses level, but that's beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 3 February 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:2011–2012 Bahraini uprising[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: speedy rename per C2D to match Bahraini uprising (2011–present). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The uprising in Bahrain is still ongoing and the page has been renamed so the categories should keep up to date with page moves when it comes to dates. There has never really been any sign of the protests ending in 2012 anyway. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 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:Journal 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions in categorization tree Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as per nom. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:25, 31 January 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: Pet Turtles[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: category already being discussed, as noted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Koko Nigel (talk) 6:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC) We are working on a new category about pet turtles.
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:Law journals edited by students[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of the journals in the Category:Academic journals edited by students are law journals. Having a separate subcat Category:Law journals edited by students will just result in a cat with a handful of entries and one large subcat. Subcategorizing Category:Academic journals edited by students according to journal topic just doesn't make much sense. Similarly, a majority of US law journals (and quite a few in other countries, too) are student-edited. Moving them to a separate subcat therefore really is not necessary and there are more pertinent ways of subcategorizing law journals. Student-edited law journals should be categorized into Category:Law journals (or one of its country or subject-specific subcats) and into Category:Academic journals edited by students. Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Currently the few non-law journals edited by students are buried among the many law journals edited by students. The diffusion of the parent cat journals edited by students into the child law-specific cat helps navigate the entries. It also helps gauge notability, as it's less common thus acceptable to have journals edited by students in other fields (e.g., physics). So, yes, this is an intersection category, but a notable and useful one currently not well served by the intersecting categories. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The combined cats are not so large that this would hamper finding a particular journal. I'd like to add that one might actually question whether being edited by students is a defining characteristic of a journal. We don't categorize other journals according to whether they are edited by academics, or men, or women, or whatever, either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being on a student law journal serves as a honor society of sorts in American law schools so this is distinct from other student-edited journals and there are no shortage of them. I would not favor further diffusion of this category though. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not saying this is something that should not be mentioned in the article on the journal, I'm just doubting the utility of a separate subcat when we already have "Academic journals edited by students". --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished diffusing articles to Fgnievinski's new category, and there are 104 law journals and 43 non-law ones in the parent category. Maybe that changes your mind or maybe we just happen to disagree here. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, there was smoke coming out of my watchlist. I'm withdrawing the nom, although I am absolutely not convinced of the utility of this split (and that this is an honor for students really has nothing to do with it). I still don't see why the intersection of law journals and academic journals edited by students should have its own cat, but I'm not willing to have the community waste any more time over this than already has been the case. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was right to carry out such extensive changes while discussion was ongoing. But the final result looks neat! Now it's time to crack down on those student-edited journals (notability disputed). Fgnievinski (talk) 21:07, 31 January 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:The Progressives politicians[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) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. The category only contains one article so it doesn't currently aid navigation and The Progressives is a small splinter group of the French Socialist party so there is very little room for growth. No objection to recreating later if more content appears.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Politics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not much content to navigate, and I imagine that as long as this remains a left-ish affliiate of a right-ish party without a grass roots movement then it isn't going to grow in the foreseeable future. SFB 12:48, 31 January 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:2015 births[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: defaulting to standard practice since there's no consensus to depart from it here: delete; can be created when there's something to do in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for an empty placeholder category awaiting the first notable birth of 2015. Can be recreated when that happens. A C1 speedy request was disputed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, usually I would agree to delete, but I don't see the harm leaving this category empty until a notable baby is born. What is the point of deleting it and then recreting it later? The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting a baby in April, so it will be empty until April at least. JMHamo (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because recreating it would be super hard? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wP:NOTBURO it clearly will be used unless the end of the world happens, and it is already 2015. Great potential for growth. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might not be a very helpful comment to say to that but if the end of the world happens, who is going to delete it? :P Jackninja5 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will easily have an article in the category in th next few months when Britain's biggest free-loaders and spongers produce another kid. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only five babies will be born this year so this category can't possibly be populated and should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. SFB 00:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't think it matters how many babies will be born this year; we will not know how many people born in 2015 will be notable when they are adults, so SMALLCAT should not apply here. See Category:2010s births... these catgories tend not to have too many notable infants unless you are born in to a Royal family. JMHamo (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there was a joke in there somewhere that was taken too seriously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I am a true Republican (in the sense of liking republics and not monarchies), I know William and Catherine's next child will have an article, so there is no point in deleting the category. In fact I am surprised we don't have an article already.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per our rule against keeping empty categories, delete for now and recreate once an article actually exists to be filed in it. Recreating a category at a later date is not such a horrifically onerous task that it has to be avoided at all costs — it takes three clicks on a mouse button, big fat hairy whoop dee big fat hairy doo. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 4 February 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_January_31&oldid=1136102485"