Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5[edit]

Category:Timekeeping[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in subject matter, very little distinction besides horology being more "scientific" Share the category:measurement and category:time parents. The main article for timekeeping links mainly to articles in Horology: (water clock, alarm clock (child of cat:clock), clockmaker etc.) Suggest either merge, or at least make a clear distinction between the two. Forbes72 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate but clarify - From what I see, one cat has members concerning the keeping of time, and the other cat has members concerning the study of the keeping of time. - jc37 06:53, 9 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:Indoor athletics (track and field)[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 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only form of athletics that takes place indoors is track and field. Thus, the current title introduces unnecessary redundancy and vagueness. SFB 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Small point on the reasoning: sports like basketball take place indoors,(though maybe not "indoor athletics") but are not considered track and field. "Indoor Athletics" is more ambiguous though, as the basketball example demonstrates, and shown by the category creator's decision to specify "track and field" as well. The renaming keeps things simple, and quick search says "indoor track and field" is more popular than "indoor athletics" anyway. Just be sure to redirect Category:Indoor athletics to the new Category:Indoor track and field. Forbes72 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good point. Thanks for the correction. Forbes72 (talk) 19:17, 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:People in Polish history[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 12:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant categorization layer, its only entry is one child category Category:Polish people by period. No need to upmerge because the child category is already parented directly to its grandparent category Category:Polish people thus bypassing this intermediate level. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 5 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:Committee on Institutional Cooperation[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 12:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a university is a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university (none of the articles I checked, e.g. Purdue University, mention this organization in the lede). If kept this should be renamed to something like "Universities that are members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation". For info: there is a list at Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation#Member_universities. For info: This is one of a long series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_23#Category:Associated_Colleges_of_the_Midwest). DexDor (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete --per precedent for other university membership organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 17 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:Grade crossing accidents in the United States[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 this category as nominated; note that this may be an ENGVAR case, so this shouldn't serve as a precedent for similar categories of other countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was at Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States until some minutes ago; it was nominated for renaming on WP:TIES grounds, since "level crossing" isn't much used in the USA. I agreed with moving it, but not with the new name; an admin closed the previous discussion with a rename, but specifically said However the comment by Nyttend raises the question of the proposed target being the best result. So this rename does not prevent a follow up one to determine a more accurate name. This is the follow up one.
I've never heard the term "grade crossing" by itself in this context, and while I've not experienced all of the USA, I don't see how this could be the most common US term for the concept. "At-grade crossing" or simply "railroad crossing" are both more common. See the introduction to the level crossing article, which says "usually known as a railroad crossing in North America". Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no objection to either the current name or the proposed name. Thryduulf (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the category is for accidents involving roads crossing railways on the level, and by implication involving both road vehicles ans trains. The proposed category name could also imply accidents where two railways cross on the level. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this seems like the best reason to support it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Weird, I thought I responded to this earlier] What do you mean? In North America, "railroad crossing" is unambiguously the place where a railroad crosses a road; I've never even heard a term for a place where two railroads cross. Not just a US thing, either; after the original discussion concluded, I asked a Canadian acquaintance (college-age, not some sort of specialist in the subject) to name the place where a road and a rail line cross, and her only term for it was "railroad crossing", outside of hearing "level crossing" in a Thomas the Tank Engine context. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate the Canadian category because I wasn't sure whether on not they use the term, but would think that the term level crossing would probably be favoured. If there are good reasons to rename that category, a proposal can always be brought forward. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In British English at least the term for two railway lines crossing on the same level is a "flat crossing". I don't know what the US English term is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to either the current name or the proposed name; I have no expertise in US-English. Oculi (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to either the current name or the proposed name, thought I think Mjroots makes an interesting point. --IJBall (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is much more natural American English. kennethaw88 • talk 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. We should use understandable language natural to the context. Neutralitytalk 17:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection but this reflects US usage and should not require sibling categories to be renamed. The British English would be "level crossing", but that should not be imposed on local usage elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 17 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.

Award categories with no articles about the awards (countries C–Z)[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 all except for Category:Hero of the People's Armed Forces (see Hero of the People's Armed Forces), Category:Hero Cities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (separate nomination required, see discussion below) and Category:Recipients of the Eduardo Mondlane Order (target for redirect Order of Eduardo Mondlane does say it is the country's highest order, and the category currently has 8 pages). – Fayenatic London 15:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
nominated categories

Countries C–H

Countries I–K

Countries L–M

Malaysia

Countries N–P

Countries R–T

Countries U–Z

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up nomination to this nomination, which resulted in the deletion of the categories (from countries A–B) for awards that don't have corresponding articles about the awards. Nominated here are the similar categories from countries C–Z. Articles exist for none of the categories, as noted. I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a wikiproject that deals with awards of this sort? If so, I think we ought to dump the contents of these categories into lists that would be in the project's space. If these categories are deleted (I agree that most should be), it would be easy to reconstruct one of them if an article were to be written. To make it easier to find these lists, they could be linked in the deletion summaries at the close of this CFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could be done, though many of these categories currently only have one or two articles in them, which kind of renders making a list based on the category contents pretty pointless. Some of them are decently populated, but it's a distinct minority of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hero Cities of Yugoslavia. See Order of the People's Hero#Hero Cities; the title of Hero City appears to have been a variant on the broader order. If you have an additional rationale for suggesting its deletion, I may not oppose it, but your rationale here is the result of someone not creating some appropriate redirects. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could create a redirect from virtually any of the redlinked articles in the nomination to something, if only a very general article about the awards given by the particular country, which might list all of them. I think that if an award lacks sufficient self-notability to not require a self-standing article dedicated to the award, it's very difficult to argue that a category should exist for its recipients. There's so little content in Order of the People's Hero#Hero Cities (really, it's just a list of cities that were awarded it) that I don't see how one could use that content to argue that this is defining for the cities that were awarded it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it's covered by an article, i.e. since we have substantial coverage of this specific award, your original nomination rationale isn't applicable. Perhaps your statement here makes sense (I don't deal with this kind of thing, so I don't know), but it's not the same situation as the rest of these. Why don't you just withdraw it and then make a new individual nomination, so that it can be addressed apart from the others? I don't have an opinion on whether this is ultimately a good category; you can nominate it without regard to my opinions and without regard to my statements here at CFD. Nyttend (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is probably a good idea just to keep the nomination focused on the main issue. If I do that, is it OK if I remove the comments you and I have made here regarding that specific category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Editconflict — I was expanding the previous paragraph with In this case, it looks like Hero Cities were simply cities that were awarded the Order of the People's Hero, which is covered quite extensively. PS, note my comment about the Mondlane award; a redirect to a list ought not be considered. I meant up above that you would have found the Order of the People's Hero page if someone had created a redirect, not that the redirect itself makes the page worth keeping. Please don't remove the comments, but perhaps you could hat them? No need to move them to the new discussion, meanwhile. Nyttend (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case, there's probably no point in me withdrawing it and starting a new nomination for it before this one runs its course. If the category remains after this nomination is closed, I can just as easily nominate it then. The only benefit to my POV in withdrawing it now would be to remove the distraction of this side-discussion. (Many users tend to steer clear of reading such diversions or commenting in discussions that contain them.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Huh? We have a significant article on this award (16,405 bytes at last edit), making your nomination completely irrelevant to it. Since the original rationale doesn't apply here, it must be kept unless people start saying "Delete the Hero Cities of Yugoslavia category too", since someone addressing awards without articles aren't talking about it. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm happy to let the closer of this discussion make that call. If it remains after the discussion it is closed, I can re-nominate it. But in the circumstances I see no benefit to me to withdrawing it and doing it immediately. The fact remains that the award has no self-standing article, which is the underlying meaning of what I intended to mean when I said that these categories have no article about the award. I wasn't suggesting that the awards are not mentioned at all in any Wikipedia article. I therefore believe that my deletion rationale still applies to that category. You've pointed out a wrinkle, but I don't think it's fatal to the nomination. Ultimately, I see the issue as a distraction, which is why I was willing to completely remove the issue from consideration and discussion here. But I'm not willing to only go only half way and remove the nomination of it but not the discussion of the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category for the recipients of the Hero of the People's Armed Forces; apparently you overlooked this 3+-year-old article. The only other bluelinked mainspace page is Order of Eduardo Mondlane, but it's just a redirect to a one-sentence bit in Orders, decorations, and medals of Mozambique. Not enough to sustain a category. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (possibly after more checks for any that do have proper articles). Note: Having a redirect to a short paragraph about the award isn't (IMO) enough to warrant a category for the award recipients. I'm not sure there's a need to listify (in every case) [to article-space] as I've seen editors working through a off-wiki list categorizing every article on that list without actually checking whether it mentions the characteristic - in some cases categorizing an article about a totally different subject that happens to have the same name. DexDor (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Clarified. DexDor (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My meaning was that we could just dump the contents into a projectspace list and file it away for use if one of these got created: no need to maintain it, because it won't be presented to readers. You could even dump every category's contents into the list, one at a time, overwriting the previous one, if you're concerned that people would find it and do inappropriate work. The point is that because we're deleting several dozen award categories just because the awards don't have articles, it's quite possible that one or more is significant enough to warrant a category if someone does write an article, and we shouldn't force someone to do a pile of work to reconstruct the category. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listifying to somewhere in project space would be ok (as long as it's clear that it's not an article), but I'm not sure there's much point as anyone creating a (article-space) list of people who won an award is much more likely to use a list in a (off-wiki) RS than to find a list in wp project space. DexDor (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of listifying an awards category (even in non-article space) when it only has only has one, two, or three members in it? Such situations account for the majority of nominated categories. Which specific categories that are nominated is @Nyttend: recommending this listification for? (Even for those with 4–12 articles, it would be quite easy to re-construct the contents of the category via a simple search, since the awards are usually mentioned in bio articles. This doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. It's not like we would be deleting categories that contain dozens and dozens of articles in them.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which of these awards are articles that have been deleted, and which just haven't been created? The case for keeping categories about the latter is a lot stronger. pbp 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we ought not distinguish between them in this nomination: neither one can show that the award is significant, and we ought not go categorising by insignificant awards. If we have any individuals that are different, we should discuss them separately. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Purplebackpack89: I have not checked for that distinction. All I checked for is whether or not there is an existing, self-standing article about the award. Some of them might be notable enough to someday have such an article. If that happens, I would then have no objection to re-creation of a corresponding category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Nearly) All Whether or not there used to be an article or not, I can't see how an award could pass WP:COPDEF as defining without an article to explain the award. No objection to listifying in the project space. (However, if anyone wants to adopt a specific award to create an article, like with Hero of the People's Armed Forces, I'm fine with removing that from the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. These are awards by nations. They recognize that the recipient has done something notable. There are diplomatic honours given by one state to the head of state or senior politicians of other countries. Awards made only in that manner should be deleted, but honours granted by a state to (or mainly to) its own people should be kept. If we do not have an article on the award, then one should be created; or the category should be provided with enough headnote to define what it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These awards don't always "recognize that the recipient has done something notable". Sometimes they just recognize that a person is a member of a royal family. I have no objection to some of the categories existing if an article exists, but to have the category first puts the cart before the horse. We first need an indication that the award in question is even notable, and we can only properly assess that once we have an article with references. Only once we assess whether the award is notable can we assess whether receiving the award a defining characteristic for the recipients. If the award is not even notable, it probably can't be. Anyway, most of these have existed for some time now, and no one has created articles about the awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I there is no article, then surely the list of recipients is a great place to start building information on the topic? (Given that these are notable award, which presumably as mostly state designations, they are). SFB 19:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you examined the contents of the categories? Most have one, two, or three articles in them. Of what practical use is a "list" of one, two, or three individuals? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Thailand cats, as they are not defining characteristics of the recipients. No opinion on the rest. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - These should not be lumped together, but dealt with (at the very least) on a per-country basis. I note that the Indonesian awards presently have Orders, decorations, and medals of Indonesia, which needs work (obviously) but is an appropriate topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, and then when ones from a particular country are nominated in isolation, other users complain that a certain country is being singled out for special treatment. It's impossible to please everyone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the inclusion rung for award categories is high, and all of these categories fall well below it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a useful categorization. Lumping them all together would lead to confusion. The main articles will appear in due time. No need to create unnecessary work destroying the categories and then rebuilding them again.
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_5&oldid=1075704650"