Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Biofuels technology[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) 08:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem completely redundant with one another. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One is the technology; the other is the fuel. There may be some small (or even inadvertent) intersection, but insufficient to merge, especially in a field which is expanding. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if you're merging them they should merge to Category:Biofuel ; one is a tech category, the other is a fuels category, fuels are not the technology to make the fuels. A topic-area would not have the "s" that indicates it is a category for categorizing actual fuels. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While the fuel and the tech should be separate, the present content of both categories is a mixture of both. There is thus a case for merging and then re-splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 20 June 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:Branded TV shows[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) 08:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category of unexplained definition and unclear value. By the broadest possible definition, it would include nearly every television show in all of human existence, or at least a large proportion of them, and that would make it a massively unbrowsable megacategory. And by the narrowest one, "television shows which have a single commercial sponsor rather than selling 30-second blocks to multiple different advertisers", it would still fail to constitute a WP:DEFINING point of commonality between its entries. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branded TV shows has been created to enlist all the television shows/programs which have branding. Talentforfilm (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which, exactly by my rationale above, would be all or at least most shows that exist, and that would put tens or hundreds of thousands of articles in it (making it a massively unbrowsable megacategory). At any rate, the category system does not exist as a way to create lists of every single thing it's possible to create lists of — it exists as a way to categorize articles on the basis of their WP:DEFINING characteristics. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear and ambiguous. What is "branding" ? What if the show becomes brand? (See all those Star Trek merchandise? ) Many early U.S. TV shows had sponsors with naming rights -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The brand is no doubt a sponsor. If so, the sponsor is a performer as much as the actors. This violates WP:OC#PERF. I suspect that sponsorship is very common, but the inclusion of the sponsor's name in the title rather less so. However, that should make no difference. WE do not categorise sports events by sponsor, though the sponsor usually is named in the event title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these type of shows are mostly initiated and designed by international brands (multinational company all over the world) for the purpose of community building and creating awareness ie 'Ariel Mothers' made to show ideal mothers and motherly wisdom, it went on air in different languages and in different countries, Nestlé Nido Young Stars was on good parenting for educational and nutritional point of view to raise healthy and performing kids. Nestlé Nesvita Women of Strength targeted young women ages 12-25 to promote education and choosing right career. These show normally broadcast on several channels and all over the world to educated maximum audience, I think Branded TV shows is an important Category to cater and encourage such shows all over the world especially third world countries. Many thanksTalentforfilm (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categories exist to group Wikipedia articles, for ease of Wikipedia reader access, on WP:DEFINING characteristics of those topics — they do not exist to "cater" or "encourage" activity in the outside world. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been created to group Wikipedia articles on the shows of same nature for ease of reader access, many thanks Talentforfilm (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat myself, because you missed the point: that "grouping Wikipedia articles, for ease of Wikipedia reader access," takes place only on WP:DEFINING characteristics of the topic. Not on every characteristic that the thing could possibly be grouped on (for instance, we do not categorize people by the colour of their hair or eyes), but on characteristics that are WP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and I'm sorry: it is not "ease of reader access." You appear to be working to create articles on Kamran Qureshi's sponsor-branded programming, quite systematically and transparently. I'd warn you that Wikipedia does not exist to promote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has it's own background of education and knowledge about different subjects/things, no one has the final word/authority in information world on every subject, we explore and learn things every day. I respect everyone and his/her point of view and I still stand on my POV. Let me say this, there is no promotion being done for any brand or person in any articles. Please see my contributions and how many articles have been created and on what topics. I have contributed and corrected in several articles in previous weeks which I think haven't been noticed. Articles were made where Kamran Qureshi was a director, at the same time hundreds of other people from same projects/subject have been associated and mentioned and linked. many thanksTalentforfilm (talk) 06:45, 24 June 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:Kamran Qureshi[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. – Fayenatic London 18:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation for a person who doesn't even have a WP:BLP, and whose only content is the also inappropriate Category:Kamran Qureshi filmography nominated immediately below — update, a BLP was created sometime after I nominated this, so the category now contains the still-improper filmography category and the BLP but still nothing else — thus also making this a navigationally unnecessary WP:SMALLCAT. and an eventual WP:CSD C1. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, I've added the category to his bio article, for now. Talenforfilm is not good at communicating his intentions but what we're seeing is a systematic - but not always well-thought out -- creation of a set of articles and categories all related to Kamran Qureshi and Evergreen Media Europe by this single purpose editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. Articles like Ariel Mothers and Kamran Qureshi cover related subjects so should be (and are) linked by normally article links. Categorization should be for grouping similar subjects. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 16 June 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:Kamran Qureshi filmography[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; now exists as a list in the lead article. – Fayenatic London 18:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a misuse of the category system for a task more appropriately handled in list form — except that Kamran Qureshi doesn't even have a BLP to list it in. Simply renaming it so that it would fit into Category:Films by director isn't appropriate, for two reasons — firstly, one of the rules of that tree is that the director has to already have an article, and secondly, this is a mix of films and television series (and we don't categorize TV series by director or include them in "Films directed by" categories.) Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this couldn't be speedied as an empty category. I have placed such a tag on his other category creation, Category:Films Eunuch. Not even sure what Eunuch Films is, or if it's just a test page of some kind. Talentforfilm does a) seem to have some issues still, around understanding how categories work and b) seems very focused on creating content related to Kamran Qureshi and his Evergreen Media Europe. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it can't be speedied as an empty category, because it isn't empty. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was before, I thought. Of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge of articles that don't belong in a filmography category (that can be done before the CFD is closed) then delete if empty. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were kept on that basis, it would still have to be renamed to Category:Films directed by Kamran Qureshi. But the problem is that five of the six entries are television series, not films — and the only one of the six that is a film is a television film, not a theatrical one, and thus still wouldn't belong in the "Films directed by..." tree anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 20 June 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:California performance art[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; (non-admin closure). DexDor (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The lead to Performance art bears a hatnote that cautions: "Not to be confused with Performing arts." Yet this category's description and contents do exactly that. If we eliminate all the performing arts sub-categories that don't belong here, then I see no reason to break out performance art in the state of California. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. ok, I went in and removed all the non-relevant sub-categories. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::hm, uh-oh. I created this category purely to focus upon performance art. as a New Yorker, my motives in setting up this for California was purely as an act of interstate courtesy. and also, they DO have some significant examples in that state. unfortunately, those Gold Coasters seem to have twisted the category's purpose and scope. okay, we can deep-six this category, if others here agree. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see. It was meant as a West Coast parallel to Category:New York City performance art, not the mixed bag container category for performing arts it had become. Well, if others feel a state-wide "California" category for performance art is defining and useful, fine by me. I'd be happy to withdraw this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks. I appreciate your response, fellow Wikipedian. hey, check my contribs history for this morning, if you want. thanks to your helpful entry here, I have now started a new type of category, Category:Performing arts by state of the United States. California is our first member. not the first time that New York has had to step in to help our friends in the Golden State to have a little bit of linear structure for themselves. lol --Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well, a day's gone by and I'll formally ask to Withdraw this. The false intersection issue was the only reason I brought it here and it's been resolved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 13 June 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.

German Empire[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. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remainder of categories
Nominator's rationale: Although it is the same entity, I think it's better to have the 1871–1918 establishments renamed and put into a separate Category:German Empire structure. Under that category, we can have Category:History in the German Empire and then establishment and disestablishments categories so that the German Empire category is more useful and concise on its own rather than having to go back to the Germany article. The same articles could also be put into Category:Establishments in Germany by year, etc. so that it is complete and this mirrors the History of Germany by period structure. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. Nominator has meanwhile proposed a pretty large number of similar(?) renames for various countries, for example see the discussions about 13th century in Ethiopia and 20th century in Mozambique. I believe it would be better if we discuss all these nominations in conjunction, especially since the separate discussions go in different directions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been a consistency so I don't see what waiting accomplishes but to me, Wikipedia:Category_names#How_to_name_the_country states that you use the historical name, i.e. the name in the article about the country and Germany breaks out at Germany#German_Confederation_and_Empire into German Confederation, German Empire (and then Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany). We do have Category:Establishments in West Germany by year and Category:Establishments in East Germany by year so I find it odd. I added a section and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category names and let's see if we can add to it with some consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give the exact link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category names? Because I don't see it right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 16 June 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:Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains[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: listify. MER-C 12:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains to article Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains
Nominator's rationale: Listify. The article Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains already exists and would better serve the restrictive circumscription of such a category for a small region. Articles in this category are already categorized in the Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States category tree, so there's no need to merge. The article indicates 1,400 species would be included, but they would also be in some portion of the flora category tree, so keeping this category just adds to the confusion and redundancy of a system of overlapping regional flora categories. Rkitko (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify per nom. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify - agree w/nom. Neutralitytalk 04:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify -- Many of the plants will also occur elsewhere. If we get an article on the flora of another area, we would have to give it a category too but this causes category clutter, cognate with WP:OC#PERF, the "performance" here being occurence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 20 June 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_June_12&oldid=1074815020"