Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:1652 establishments in the Cape Colony[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 some, keep others per Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, we currently have one single establishment in the Cape Colony not only in the year 1652 (as in the nominated category) but rather in the whole 17th century. So we have here a total of 8 categories to host no less than 1 article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree that the millennium subcategory is redundant, though this will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merging Category:1652 establishments in the Cape Colony‎ to Category:17th-century establishments in the Cape Colony, Category:1652 establishments in Africa and Category:1652 establishments in the Dutch Empire
Deleting categories that will become empty after this merge:
Category:1650s in the Cape Colony
Category:1652 in the Cape Colony
Category:1650s establishments in the Cape Colony
Category:Years of the 17th century in the Cape Colony. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marcocapelle's reassessment immediately above. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:30, 19 September 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:Arab socialist 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:  Relisted at 2015 OCT 9 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all Arab nationalists are Arab socialists, but the reverse is true. Neither category has many articles in it anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge any non-socialists into the nationalist category. Most of the parties have socialist in their name and the Ba'ath party was Arab socialist too. They may not have many articles but a good many subcats, so that they are potentially useful as container cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 12 September 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:Shaun King race debate[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) 07:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seriously? Brustopher (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:COP, categorization of people should be of defining characteristics. I don't think this flash-in-the-pan, briefly-newsworthy-but-quickly-discredited fringe claim about a living person is a "defining characteristic" of any living person. There's no foreseeable potential for growth of the category either, because the issue has entirely disappeared from reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not bwidespread enough that it needs a category. "Black Lives Matter" is a better category. For policy/guideline reasons fails WP:OCEPON, WP:OCASSOC, and will always run afoul of either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --DHeyward (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- adopting @NorthBySouthBaranof perfectly stated rationale. Quis separabit? 02:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing anything that justifies this as a category. Artw (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Most of this is about people and organisations that contributed to a rather NN debate; that would make it a performance category, which we do not allow. Most Black Americans (and West Indians) have mixed-race descent anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic for any of the individuals or organizations currently in this category, and this "race debate" doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a category. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The race controversy is mentioned briefly in the Shaun King article. Is there enough material for expanding it? This is a minor controversy and in no need of a category, but could perhaps be mentioned in the articles of the people involved. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can argue about how much attention this deserves in the relevant articles, but devoting a category to it is obviously ridiculous. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECOMMEND closing as SNOW now. Quis separabit? 13:31, 17 September 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:Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalisms[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 14:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per outcome of the July 22 deletion proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, being consistent with this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per that discussion. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:35, 19 September 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:Abandoned military aircraft projects of France[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) 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom. The distinction between "abandoned" and "cancelled" projects is unclear and likely invented by us. It looks like I missed this redundant category when I nominated the U.S. and U.K. ones. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Overlapping categories. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 11 September 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:Architects from Sicily[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 (category was emptied already in favour of Category:Sicilian architects). Category:Sicilian architects was not tagged for this discussion, but it's open for someone to nominate it for renaming to Category:Architects from Sicily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I've recategorised 2 articles which had this with the standard Category:Sicilian architects; this category is now empty, and has no links (was this hasty/incorrect process -- please let me know if it should have been cfm-ed instead with no recategorisation) Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just letting you know but when nominating a category for deletion, you're not supposed to recategorize any of its entries....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 11 September 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:Dutch Golden Age[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 subcategories/delete category as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've started an attempt to clean this category manually but it's really a waste of effort. Many articles are already in a subcat of Category:17th century in the Dutch Republic or Category:17th century in the Dutch Empire, many other articles are geography articles rather than history articles and many others just don't belong here. The proposal is to first move the subcategories to Category:17th century in the Dutch Republic and then to delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Golden" is only in the eyes of the victors of empire, seldom in the eyes of the vanquished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Not only does what makes something a "Golden" age involve lots of assessment, but its parameters, even if the term itself is agreed on by historians, will be difficult to fix. A century is easily fixed, and while arguably a arbitrary division, is the easist to standardize over large parts of time. Beyond that people regularly speak of different centuries as if they are clearly distinct, referencing the 21st-century, 20th-century and 19th-century quite often.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 19 September 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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Indonesia Wikipedia[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 14:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misspelling. - TheChampionMan1234 05:34, 11 September 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:LGBT places[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 the contents being upmerged to Category:LGBT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons whereby Wikipedia consensus has insisted on categorizing films as Category:LGBT-related films rather than "LGBT films", magazines as Category:LGBT-related magazines rather than "LGBT magazines", and on and so forth, this needs to be renamed — the current naming implies, wrongly, that the places have an inherent sexual orientation or gender identity of their own, rather than simply being associated with people who have sexual orientations or gender identities. The places are LGBT-related, but they don't have sexual or gender identities per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - would the same logic mean that "Category:LGBT nightclubs" should be renamed "Category:LGBT-related nightclubs"? Would a rename to something like "Category:Facilities for LGBT people" be better? DexDor (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subcategories of this category consistently leave off "related" from their titles. I don't have preference with this parent category but the articles in, say, Category:LGBT museums and archives aren't just LGBT "related", they're specifically LGBT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge to Category:LGBT, not "places". These are various types of places frequented by or catering to a LGBT clientele, the only thing they have in common is their clientele, which is handled in the category to which they should be upmerged. Otherwise we'll be categorizing every place by who goes there, lives there, or is marketed toward. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative rename to Category:Facilities for LGBT people per DexDor. Places is pretty vague and facilities is a much better description anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The places themselves are not LGBT, only related to people. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of "-related" in mainspace category names - it's too imprecise and is normally only used in wikiproject categories.
Either (1) leave unchanged (if Category:LGBT nightclubs is ok then Category:LGBT places is ok) or rename to Category:Places for LGBT people (or something similar, e.g. using the word "facilities" or "venues").
Also add some inclusion criteria to make clear that the category is only for articles about things that exist mainly for LGBT people - e.g. a park/beach etc that is popular with LGBT people but is also used by other people should not be in this category (a list may be appropriate in such a case). DexDor (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be happy with an upmerge to Category:LGBT (which is I think, what the Delete !votes really mean). DexDor (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Whether a place is LGBT-related is wholly subjective (POV) which provides no basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straight delete would leave Category:LGBT monuments and memorials without an LGBT parent category. DexDor (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT is suitable and is willing to foster parent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have removed Category:LGBT churches from the category as the members are all church bodies or congregations. I don't see that anyone things the buildings themselves are LGBT. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter? Whether buildings or congregations, they are still places/facilities for LGBT people, aren't they? It would probably be better to rename Category:LGBT churches but that's a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly one of the things that we're discussing right now. I agree that 'places' is not really appropriate and should be renamed. But it's too early to remove something from the category before we have consensus about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What is an "LGBT place"? Do we create a "Straight place" also? Possible upmerge to Category:LGBT. OPPOSE creating Category:LGBT-related places as this can be a largely subjective and/or time-constrained, i.e. something wasn't but is now, or used to be but now isn't. Quis separabit? 16:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Facilities for LGBT people is certainly far better than the others. Quis separabit? 19:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be taking things a step too far. The monuments and memorials make sense, and can be given a higher level parent. The Churches clearly needs to not be in this category, since they are organizations not places. I have doubts about the usefulness of the category itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this is (mostly) a container category, so deleting would leave the child categories orphaned. I don't think that's a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Outright Deletion I'm neutral on the rename and neutral on an upmerge, but the child sub-categories should not be orphaned with an outright deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 26 September 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:County Commissioners of Penobscot County, Maine[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 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge the category's one entry into any other appropriate People category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 11 September 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:Strawberry sodas[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 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, and WP:OVERLAPCAT.
Wikipedia doesn't have even a single article about strawberry pop which is a shame, because it's totally delicious. Instead, 21 regional soft drink bottlers are in this category, most of which are notable for their Root Beer or Orange Soda. If "Strawberry" is listed under "Other Flavors" in the article, it's in this category. Categorizing companies by every single product they make isn't defining: Hosmer Soda makes 35 flavors of while Nehi makes 40. Take a look at the bottom of those articles to see how this is creating category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Purplebackpack89 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the following reasons:
  1. Not an empty category. 21 entries is more than enough to sustain a category.
  2. Having a strawberry flavor is a defining characteristic of Strawberry Crush, Strawberry Fanta, Strawberry Jones, etc
  3. While there isn't an article on strawberry soft drinks as of yet, it's likely sourceable and could very easily be created.
  4. Why only strawberry soda? Why not any of the other fruit sodas? And why outright deletion? Why not merger?

pbp 01:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Hank's makes an orange soda, why shouldn't it be categorized under orange sodas? pbp 03:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Welch's and others in this category are not defined by its strawberry soda. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a strawberry soda is certainly a defining characteristic of Welch's strawberry soda. pbp 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this would be a splendid category if it were populated by articles on strawberry sodas but it isn't. Welch's is a company, not a soft drink of any sort. I can't see any article which is about a strawberry soda. Oculi (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not only about a strawberry soda... pbp 20:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles such as A-Treat Bottling Company shouldn't be categorized under every flavor they sell. If there are any articles in this category that are about a strawberry soda then they should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oculi. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not categorize a pop brand like Faygo by every type of pop it makes. Only if we had an article on Faygo Strawberry Soda should we put it in this category. This principal needs to be applied to all pop categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 19 September 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_September_11&oldid=1138409394"