Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 5

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

August 5[edit]

Category:Songs written by Rhonda Fleming (songwriter)[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rhonda Fleming is just the real name of Kye Fleming, who already has her own category; see here for proof. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 5 August 2016 (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:Animation by region[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) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no topic articles for these categories. One sub-cat currently contains one article that is already in Category:Moroccan animation; the other contains two national categories. The creator of the categories also added Algeria History and Civilization to one of them, but this was removed as redundant to the national category. While it would be possible to populate these with the various national categories corresponding to these regions, I do not think these categories would be particularly valuable for navigation. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without sourced topic articles there is no evidence this is a justified way of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (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:Critics of political correctness[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) 04:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria for inclusion. List included comedians, actors and political commentators. Vague concept of being a critic of something, usually not supported in the BLP's listed. Boils down to "said something about political correctness sometime". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if one could define inclusion criteria, categorizing people by one aspect of their presumably multiple points of view is a bad idea and will lead to category clutter. Imagine the bio of the average politician which a "for" or "against" category on every issue of his or her day. Ugh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Carlossuarez46. AS a general principle, categorising ppl by point-of-view is a recipe for a forest of category clutter. But even if we did go down that path, this one is far too vague to make a stable category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no clear inclusion criteria, and often not a defining characteristic. Neutralitytalk 02:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - There isn't really an agreed-upon definition of "political correctness", and while the intent is obvious, there are probably existing categories relative to people's political beliefs which make this one redundant. I say this as a critic of political correctness. Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise - I agree with the critiques of the page as it is. However, the matter that might be more useful, would be a page on 'Critiques of political correctness', what elements of this are in this page could be saved, when the page is deleted, and used to start a new page on this topic. I think that a revised page, exploring the history and development of arguments against the various forms of political correctness would be useful. Alternatively, it could be a sub-section of an article on censorship or intolerance. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for what I feel should be obvious reasons. Suppafly (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2016 (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:Proto-prog albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Category:Proto-prog albums

Category:Sauti Sol[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) 05:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 5 August 2016 (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:Linaria (bird genus)[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D rejected at CFDS because the move was unilateral. But (bird genus) is over-precise, non-standard disambiguation. (genus) is common for genera, but we also have Linaria, a plant genus. WP:NCDAB recommends disambiguation "commonly used for other topics within the same class and context", and a look at Category:Bird genera shows (bird) is common, especially where genus names are used for other types of organisms. BDD (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It's a common disambiguator to use with genera, even though perhaps it is not an ideal one. But if we decide that the disambiguator should be changed, it should probably be in a broader effort to change it in the range of articles that use it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2016 (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:Songs with lyrics by Vishal Dadlani[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: speedily deleted by Graeme Bartlett (G5). --BDD (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:40, 5 August 2016 (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:Songs with music by Devi Sri Prasad[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: speedily deleted by Mackensen. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:08, 5 August 2016 (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:Jonita Gandhi songs[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: speedily deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 5 August 2016 (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:Archaeology educators[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Education is part of any academics' job. Only 9 members and all already belong to Category:Archaeologists Joe Roe (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're asserting that all archaeologists are also teachers of archaeology, I think that's just demonstrably false. --BDD (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess to not knowing of many archaeologists, but Howard Carter for one, really wouldn't qualify as an educator except under the very broadest of terms (e.g., because he gave some lectures). --BDD (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of grandfathers of the discipline like Carter (who might more properly be called antiquarians), and contemporary full-time excavators (who unfortunately we have very few articles on), an archaeologist is a practitioner of the academic discipline of archaeology, and although not all academics teach, it's still considered one of the routine activities of academics in general. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating why this category is redundant, but basically it's like putting a random selection of biologists in "biology educators", or having a category for "archaeology excavators" – it's taking an arbitrary, non-defining part of the role of archaeologists and making a category out of it. Joe Roe (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good point about Carter. What about those excavators, though? Do we lack articles on them because they don't get coverage sufficient to pass GNG? If they're always going to be a non-factor because of our notability standards, I think I can drop my objection, but if we're eventually going to have coverage of them, deletion here seems short-sighted. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the members of Category:Archaeologists would fall into that category, so I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. Joe Roe (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NONDEF, with one exception all people in the category are typified as archaeologists in general, not as professors. Besides, more in general, I don't think it's a good idea to populate the educators tree (or the writers tree, for that matter) with specialists in a certain field; teaching and writing are too obvious activities of these specialists. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is true that there are many professionals in archaeology who do not work as educators, the notion behind this category is still flawed. The situation is I think even a bit clearer in physics, and there I would equally oppose such a category. Many physicists spend their entire time researching, and work directly for industry instead of in academia, or in research institutions where they have no teaching functions. Some others are at universities but avoid all teaching assignments, although these more often only do so for part of their career at the university. However in any case the physicist who steps in front of the classroom, be it for an intro physics class, a not even quite physics physical education class, or for an advanced undergraduate or graduate seminar, does not transform themself from being a physicist to being a "physicist educator." This term only would make sense in nursing, where those who teach are seen as a distinct group from those who educate. The high school math teacher is also a distinct phenomena from the university mathematician, whether or not the later is occasional compelled to interact with students. However the reality is that there are very few classes in Archaeology offered below the college tertiary level, and due to issues of skill set and perceived expertise, on the rare (and I am not sure it would even be existant) occasion such a course would be pursued, the person who almost certainly either be a college professor taking on a course in the local (either to his institution of assignment or the dig he is overseeing, in the later case making this an even less useful category) or the person would be someone who has more broad training, such as holding a BA in history teaching, with a minor in Archaeology, so they might do one class out of 10 annyually, or maybe even 1 out of 20 biannually in Archaeology, hardly defining to the individual. Even if in the next 5 years Archaeology becomes the new craze, displacing STEM, and every up and coming charter school makes sure parents know that they have on staff a full time teacher of Archaeology, just as today who would send their 16-year-old to a school that has a chemistry teacher who tries to get by on one college physics class taken over a decade ago to teach chemistry (although maybe I am more optimistic about the insistence that science teachers know there subject than I really should be), I see it unlikely that members of this new wave of Archaeology teachers at the secondary level would be notable for such, even though it will be defining to them at the time. If they go on to be notable as writers or politicians or stunt artists, I am not thinking the exact nature of their previous career in education will matter. I think in issues like this there is a defining buildup of definingness and notability. At the time the method a person uses to get paid is defining to them, although it is probably more defining to the artist who spends msot of their time painting than to the garbage truck operator. Most people we have articles on who have been lawyers or school teachers are not notable for such, but as long as they actually worked in those professions I think we should categorize them as such. However we do not seperate out various members of legislature based on whether their previous or concurent work as a lawyer was as a coporate one, a criminal defense lawyer, a trial lawyer who fit the definition of "ambulance chaser" or other such possibilities. In the same way it falls above the categorizable axis on the notability/definability chart that Rob Bishop was a teacher, but not the specific subjects he taught (history and government), and I am not sure that the level he taught at is defining either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2016 (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:Archaeological writers[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After pruning these categories of people more straightforwardly described as archaeologists or antiquarians, they only have two members left; both of which are authors who dabbled in archaeology. If the defining characteristic of a person is that they write about archaeology, they're probably an archaeologist. Joe Roe (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the two remaining people are writers about history, not archaeologists. As such they are adequately categorized in the historians tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both subjects are adequately placed in historian/anthropologists categories that cover their writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2016 (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/2016_August_5&oldid=1086105677"