Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 25 December 27 >

December 26[edit]

Category:Buzzwords[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 to Category:Buzzword and purge. Pinging the participants @Fixuture, Marcocapelle, and Johnpacklambert: to do the purging.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is very fuzzy/vague (and its entries) subjective and controversial. It's also useless and more or less constantly changing. Buzzwords can still be listed with sources under List of buzzwords. Fixuture (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are four articles in the category about buzzwords as a topic, so an alternative could be to purge the category to become a topic category. This is not an oppose to deleting though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge down to just articles that cover the topic itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment if we turn this into a topic category, we'd better rename into Category:Buzzword (singular). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2017 (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:University of Adelaide Dental School alumni[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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, one article since 2013 Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge -- We categorise alumni by university, not department/school. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 27 December 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:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality[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 Category:Fictional Bengali characters and Category:Fictional Western Asian people. No consensus on the other 3. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: consistent with parent categories. --Atvica (talk) 06:27, 26 December 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:Wikipedians who have been nominated for deletion[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this categories does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, and possibly confusing to users. Prime example of a inappropriate type of user category.. VegaDark (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the ironies! Yeah, there's really no good reason not to delete the category page. I recollect that it was created as a red-linked joke, but then a second user decided to add themselves and make it a blue category. But I cannot help thinking that going around and looking for categories like this one to delete, on the basis that they don't foster encyclopedic collaboration, is itself an activity that doesn't foster encyclopedic collaboration. Our readers couldn't care less about this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Tryptofish, are you !voting delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
Yes, I think that deleting the category page, which is what this nomination is about, is the correct action, albeit an unnecessary one. All that causes is to turn the link at the bottom of your talk page back to red from blue, which is the way that it was almost all along. In no way does it result in removal of the joke from your talk page (and believe me, if it were otherwise, I'd be objecting very loudly here!). The guideline linked in the nom does call for not maintaining user categories that do not foster project goals (not web host and all that), so the Category PoliceTM don't want a blue-linked category. The Wikipedias is Serious Bizness! But again, the only effect is to change the font color on your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though I keep result might act as a tiny lesson to the nominator to not waste everyone's time with such gnomish niggling. EEng 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same thing with oozerboxen. One can have a user box saying, for example, that this editor likes to eat french fries, but if the template creates a category of users who like to eat french fries, that category is going to go, but the user box can stay. And here, you have to admit it's quite amusing in that, first, you were nominated for deletion, as it were, and now those of you so nominated (well, there are only two of you) have been nominated yet again. I think someone is trying to tell you something (and just wait until the new administration in the US is sworn in). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I would submit that eliminating some of the social networking aspects of the site brings about a much more encyclopedia-improving atmosphere. Eliminating these categories sends a clear message we are here to build an encyclopedia. There are definitely ways to bring humor into your Wikipedia experience without resorting to creating unencyclopedic user categories (which could confuse users by the fact there's no "User category" namespace, so could present confusion that joke categories are acceptable for mainspace categories). VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are usually lots of way to do any give thing without doing any particular thing. Those who don't understand the appropriate places for humor in the first place aren't going to see the light because of a namespace distinction. EEng 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind that I am in favor of deleting, so I do not dispute the ultimate effect of this nomination, I remain troubled by the concept of "send[ing] a clear message that we are here to...". There is an unearned bossiness about that. Is the "message" being sent to someone who is interfering with "build[ing] an encyclopedia"? Of course not. Userspace humor does nothing to alter mainspace articles, and it's the articles that our readers care about. Is the problem that editors are spending some number of minutes sharing a friendly joke when they could instead have spent that time improving a page? Every editor is a volunteer, so no one has any business asking other editors to punch a time-clock. Ultimately, it seems to me that this is really about keeping categories "orderly". If that's something that a volunteer wants to do, ok, but I decided to send a clear message about what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You tell 'em, Tryptofish. In your honor I'm posting my famous Note to the humor-impaired.
A Note to the Humor-Impaired

One should beware of those who cannot or will not laugh when others are merry, for if not mentally defective they are spiteful, selfish or abnormally conceited ... Great men of all nations and of all times have possessed a keen appreciation of the ridiculous, as wisdom and wit are closely allied.

— Leander Hamilton McCormick, Characterology; an exact science embracing physiognomy, phrenology and pathognomy, reconstructed, amplified and amalgamated ... (1920)

EEng 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That probably didn't add much to this discussion, either. Anyway – delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key to your paragraph being userspace humor. There is no userspace for categories, thus, this is not a userspace issue but an issue encroaching into the category namespace, which essentially has the same rules in this respect as mainspace. VegaDark (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People will be forgiven for mistaking this discussion for an almost perfect-pitch parody of an oversolemn contemplation of a trivial non-problem. EEng 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. When I talked about "keeping categories 'orderly'", that's what I was talking about: heaven forbid we "encroach[] into the category namespace"! What will our readers think? But I still say delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Users who !voted twice in a CfD discussion. EEng 12:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are people who don't appreciate humor, or if they do, don't understand that humor has a very definite role in fostering collaboration. But it does, because without it Wikipedia would be a bleak and grey place of noses to grindstones. EEng 20:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't The Red Hand Gang. No trampolines, just a stupid and non-encyclopedic cat. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 28 December 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:Wikipedians who participated in 1Lib1Ref[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it does not help the encyclopedia to create categories for Wikipedians who participated in previous Wikipedia events. There would be no encyclopedic purpose to go specifically seeking out such users or to form a grouping of them. Users may still freely declare their participation on their userpage, but a category for these users is inappropriate, as it cannot contribute towards collaboration for future improvement of the encyclopedia by categorizing those who participated in a past event. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 26 December 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.

Awards automatically issued to the Royal Family of Tonga[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 (non-admin closure) feminist 08:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12 more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a member of the Tongan royal family is absolutely defining which why we already have Category:Tongan royalty. Automatically getting awards based on your royal status is just redundant. The "knights" categories are also occasionally awarded to foreign royalty on official visits as a souvenir. To see the category clutter these cause at the article level, take a look at the mess on the bottom of this article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Tonga. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted similar automatic awards to monarch categories for Malaysia and Netherlands here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 26 December 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:Commanders of the Order of the Crown of Tonga[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
This award is obscure, the most prominent internet search results are all from Wikipedia or mirror sites and the article doesn't explain the selection criteria. The vast majority of recipients automatically received the award for being royalty and are nominated above but the two people in this subcategory are an exception: one is an ambassador of Australia who received it on an official visit and the other is a historian of Tonga who is already well categorized. The two articles mention the award only in passing and it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Tonga. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the basis I don't see how it is non-defining, or more non-defining than other Orders (other than the fact is isn't 'Western'). If it's been awarded since 1913 there must be scope for expansion. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the articles the award is just mentioned in passing, there is no special reason to deviate from WP:OCAWARD. Eastern and western award categories are deleted to the same extent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly awarded for merit and not just handed out to visiting dignitaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award is not defining to the people, their career is which is well categorized. This is not an award that is so overarching that it would be mentioned in any lead, so it does not fit for out guidelines on what awards to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how would you know how defining it is to its recipients? Did you seek them all out and ask them? Did you get a full list of recipients and go through them one by one? No. Your comment is pure POV. I would suspect the honour was very defining for someone like Elizabeth Wood-Ellem who devoted much of her career to Tonga. Just as a CBE would be defining to a British person. These sorts of awards are nothing like those handed out as a matter of course to visiting dignitaries or heads of state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: rationale appears to directly contradict the reasoning in the thread immediately preceding this one (regarding ostensibly similar awards). As another editor put it, "getting awards based on your royal status is just redundant", but this category of awards clearly do not apply to royalty (as the two recipients with articles on Wikipedia, Stephen Brady and Elizabeth Wood-Ellem, makes clear), so this category is substantively dissimilar from the ones in the immediately preceding thread. I hope that is not too discombobulated. Quis separabit? 20:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Correct, this category does *not* suffer from overlapping with a royal family category, like the nomination above. Do you think this award is defining for the recipients? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the risk of seeming both culturally ignorant and overbearing, LOL, I suppose it does. That's why it exists, no? Quis separabit? 00:14, 6 February 2017 (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_December_26&oldid=1083983884"