Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:American girl groups by genre[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 page was not tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is too much specific than it should be in my point of view, as well as there are "girl groups" from various countries in addition to just United States. As well, "boy bands" with different musical genres also exist. 186.206.87.25 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The genre of the group is defining and is part of a well-defined structure. Corresponding other categories can and should also exist in parallel tothis one. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd say upmerge to Category:American girl groups and the particular genre category, but I think the categories should be appropriately tagged first. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:25, 20 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:British girl groups by genre[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 page was not tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason. 186.206.87.25 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The genre of the group is defining and is part of a well-defined structure. Corresponding other categories can and should also exist in parallel tothis one. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 20 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:Salmagundi Club Members[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) 02:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a person (e.g. Winston Churchill or Norman Rockwell) was a member of the Salmagundi Club is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is a category to which both Norman Rockwell and Winston Churchill belong. The Salmagundi Club in NYC was a non-profit men's club honoring outstanding men of arts and letters. Both Norman Rockwell and Winston Churchill were members of the club and both were famous as accomplished artists (painters). In addition to his political, artistic, and oratorical skills, Winston Churchill was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in literature.
The only change that needs to be made to the category is to change the "M" in "Members" to lower case if that is the required form.
The WP:NON-DEFINING says, in part, "A central concept used in categorising [sic] articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people). Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COPDEF: Biographical categories should be added when they group "the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for." The individual members of this club are clearly highly notable, but not for their membership. Fraternal categories work best when they group the leadership, like with Category:National Commanders of the American Legion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not delete All members of this Category:Salmagundi Club Members group are leaders and notable now or in the past in their fields of art and/or letters, unlike many other organizations for which there are categories for people, living and dead. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Membership of a club is generally a NN characteristic. The fact that the club has had some notable (even extremely notable) members is no reason to have a category for it. NOtability is not inherited and thus the club cannot inherit notability from its members; or at least one member cannot inherit it from another. A London equivalent might be Category:Carlton Club members, to which many Conservative politicians belong. And here, Churchill was only an honorary member - which should not count. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 23 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:Spanish Orthodox rabbis[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 (without prejudice to re-creation if it houses modern Spanish people who are Orthodox rabbis). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word Orthodox as used in Judaism is unknown prior to the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. See Orthodox Judaism#history. The only members of this category, which I have removed, were rabbis from the eleventh century, and I don't think it's helpful to use this label with them. deisenbe (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now, but I wouldn't have a problem with recreating the category if some (modern) Spanish Orthodox rabbis might be included in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this been emptied out of process? If it had any content, I would have voted to merge to Category:Spanish rabbis. Liberal and Reformed rabbis are a relatively modern phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a speedy merge template on the category page which is inappropriate. @Deisenbe: Could you tag the category page correctly and could you give more details on the rabbis that you removed from this category, i.e. did you merge them to Category:Spanish rabbis? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're asking me to do by "tag the category page correctly".

The rabbis deleted are:

They are now in the category Sephardi rabbis which is a subcategory of Spanish rabbis.

I agree that if there are any Orthodox rabbis in Spain now, and if there are any I don't know who they are, the category could or should be recreated. deisenbe (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the information, that's very comforting! The right tag would have been {subst:cfd} with double accolades (for discussion) while you apparently used {Db-c1} with double accolades (for speedy). Please check Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#How_to_use_CfD once more. I've changed the template myself now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 26 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:Organizations with five employees[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) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sub-Category of "Organizations by Number of Employees" which was deleted per [1] discussion. WP:NONDEF. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:44, 19 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:2015 establishments in Richmond, Virginia[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) 02:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also proposing for deletion Category: 2018 establishments in Richmond, Virginia and Category: 2018 establishments in Virginia
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize establishments and disestablishments on the city level. No such categories exist for New York City, Tokyo, London, etc etc. Washington D.C. is a district. As for 2018 categories, WP:TOOSOON also applies....William 12:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need to start a Category:Establishments by city tree. kennethaw88 • talk 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- The 2015 article is legitiamte, but should be in a statewide establishments category and the plain city category. The 2018 article wreaks of WP:CRYSTAL; we cannot be sure that it will be opened in 2018, as opposed to 2019 (for example) or never (becasue the funding is slashed). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 23 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:Central African Republic biography stubs[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 C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the rest of the stub biographical categories. Dawynn (talk) 10:40, 19 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:Old buildings of Gilgit-Baltistan[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 - jc37 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Old" is subjective or determined by an arbitrary cut-off date. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_19&oldid=1138408906"