Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Category:Generalized hyperbolic distributions[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) 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and it doesn't seem to have any growth potential. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 7 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:Warner Bros. Animation animated films[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: do not rename. There may be a case for merging Category:Warner Bros. Animation animated films to Category:Warner Bros. animated films or vice versa, but this hasn't been discussed thoroughly (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is redundant. JDDJS (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename, though I can see the point. It is redundant and at the same time isn't. It is redundant in bare meaning, but the standard format of subcategories of Category:Animated films by studio is "STUDIO-NAME animated films", where STUDIO-NAME = the name of the Wikipedia article for the studio. In this case, STUDIO-NAME = Warner Bros. Animation. It's a case not dissimilar from Category:London Films films and similar categories. One could also argue that it's redundant if Warner Bros. Animation creates no non-animated films, but then why don't we just categorize these in Category:Warner Bros. animated films and forget categorizing by this studio division altogether? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 19 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.

subcats of Category:Firefighting in fiction[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationale: The titles are ambiguous - these films, television seires and video games don't fight fires. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom To match the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 8 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:Estimation for specific parameters[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) 01:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT and because specific parameters is pretty vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 7 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:Estimation for specific distributions[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) 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and because specific distributions is pretty vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 7 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:Distributions with conjugate priors[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) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Technically, "Conjugate prior distributions" are prior distributions and "Distributions with conjugate priors" are posterior distributions. But for the purposes of human search, they are both aspects of conjugate distributions, so I'd support the merge. Alternatively we could merge both cats to a common Category:Conjugate distributions. --Mark viking (talk) 21:50, 7 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:Trump administration cabinet 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: keep. (Typically in such circumstances, I would recommend filing this category's technically premature creation under "eager-beaverism" and holding one's breath for another month.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trump is not yet president, so he doesn't have a cabinet. Thus, he doesn't have cabinet members. How is this category appropriate (or, at the very least, how is it appropriately named)? Brianga (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose There's plenty of content there, even disregarding individual nominees prior to their confirmation: at least five pages and templates as of now that won't go away, including Cabinet of Donald Trump which is well developed and has robust editing. - Brianhe (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is already a demonstrated need for this category, and it will have many more entries in a few months. And the title is exactly right, see Category:Obama administration cabinet members. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Please note that an editor has removed Ben Carson from this cat while John F. Kelly (Marine) and Scott Pruitt are in the cat. I am fine withe either criteria for inclusion (announce by Trump or confirmed) but I would like to see some consistency. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Cabinet of Donald Trump is the process of development, and if this category is deleted now, it would warrant re-establishment again after the presidential inauguration next month.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that deletion would be the correct result per the nominator's reasoning, and it would neatly resolve the criteria for inclusion (see WP:VPP query by Guy Macon), but pragmatism suggests that deletion would be pointless, and the category and Template:Trump cabinet should be retained as works-in-progress. After inauguration (LOL, I see there is an article for that), the inclusion criteria would be strict, but until then, everyone has to rely on tweets. Perhaps a hatnote could appear at the top to satisfy those who understand that there is no cabinet and there are no members yet. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what we did last time But if we do please can someone change the category to President rather than President elect a few months earlier than we managed in May 2009. ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers: do you mean what we did last time, keep the category per the 2008 CfD? I liked this comment in the discussion then: "Yes, strictly it is premature, but (unless Obama dies or resigns) it is inevitable that the categores will exist." - Brianhe (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we should rename the category to include something like President-elect. But last time we had a blurb in the category "A category for media-speculated future members of the cabinet in the Administration of President-elect Barack Obama." and that blurb persisted till May 2009. I think we are already at a stage when we could describe them as "A category for nominated or publicly announced future members of the cabinet in the Administration of President-elect Donald Trump. But if so please can someone remember to update the category a few months earlier this time, perhaps on inauguration day? ϢereSpielChequers 16:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there a reason not to have two or more categories? Save this one for those who are confirmed and have a Proposed Trump administration cabinet members category (Whatever happens to these people they will always have been proposed if we do our research right, right?) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: WP:CANDIDATECAT discourages potential nominees from being categorized. Reliable sources are difficult ("an anonymous source reported...") and being just considered is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't even nominees yet (at least I don't think any have been submitted to the Senate for consideration). In any event, renaming takes about 10 seconds and isn't any trouble at all. I think it's worth being accurate on such a high-profile topic.Brianga (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, rename to Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that. Brianga (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When is it ever a valid argument on the encyclopedia to keep something that "isn't factual now, but will/might be soon"? Brianga (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we at least get consensus to put the announced nominees in some category finer than Category:Trump administration personnel? Trump administration nominees maybe? - Brianhe (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold. create Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members and put those who Trump has named there. I think we have a consensus for that already. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the necessary per your proposal. - Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianga: "Will" and "might" are two entirely different things. Like it or not, this falls under the "will" category. Trump will be President, and there's no argument at all for this category being deleted or renamed after he is President. It doesn't necessarily need to be populated right now, but since it's going to exist in a month and 8 days, why delete it now? That smacks of undue bureaucracy. pbp 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of like, or not like. Of course Trump is probably going to be president in a month. It would be incredibly unusual if he isn't. But he isn't today and thus does not have a cabinet. What's very possible is that one of the names floated by the transition team will either not be submitted to the Senate for confirmation (to my knowledge, none has yet been so submitted), or the Senate will decline to confirm such a nominee. For that additional reason, to today categorize any person as being in a category of people labeled "Trump administration cabinet members" is speculative and just plain factually inaccurate. Like I said earlier, adding people to this category after confirmation would be remarkably easy. I'd even volunteer to do it. But it should not be done now. Brianga (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit hand-wringing-ey and obstinately bureaucratic compared to "last time". For instance Holder was category tagged as Attorney General and a cabinet member on November 19 (!) and nobody seemed to mind it being premature [1]. Especially now that the Trump nominees have been moved to a "proposed cabinet members" category. In other words this is a time sink. I don't intend to reply here further. - Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The sensible objection is that Trump and his selected Cabinet members are not in office yet. They are nevertheless his Cabinet members. If one of them doesn't get confirmed, we can remove him/her at that time. No sweat. Just add a note in the category about the Cabinet selection and nominating process for accuracy. — JFG talk 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Trump administration Cabinet nominees, noting that Trump cannot appoint a Cabinet (or select, or whatever) until he is sworn-in, and that Cabinet should be capitalized. It can be renamed back at the appropriate time with ease. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem with the rename proposal is that categorizing people who are nominated but do not end up serving is overcategorization. I would argue any people who do not get their nomination confirmed by the senate and formally take office should be excluded from the category. However we should keep the category for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 17 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:Women award winners[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that's too broad to be maintainable: as currently constituted, this contains two gender-specific subcategories (Category:Actresses by award and Category:Women Pulitzer Prize winners), and otherwise contains a random partial selection of articles, for which the apparent inclusion criterion is "any woman who ever won any award at all". That's not a useful basis for a category, however, because it's not a substantively WP:DEFINING point of commonality between, say, a winner of the Nobel Prize and a winner of a local "distinguished citizen" award in her own county or city. As always, it is not necessary for every people category to always have a gender-specific subcategory for the women; per WP:CATEGRS, such categories are only appropriate when gender has a defining relationship with the topic (such as a category for winners of a notable Best Actress award), and are not meant to be an automatic feature of every category tree that happens to hold people. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing people who have won a slew of disparate awards by sex (and no doubt to be followed unless this is nipped in the bud, by race, religion, purported "descent") is an nn overlap of topics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ottawahitech has been creating and populating "women X" categories for some time. He seems to have a serious misunderstanding of the issues involved. He has the idiosyncratic belief that the adjective "female" is not only incorrect but insulting (for example, here). Perhaps someone can counsel him? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I checked three of the articles and could not see what award qualified them for inclusion. The Pullitzer subcat is for women who won that prize, which is I think also available to men. The prize may be prominent enough for a category to be allowed according to OCAWARD, but I do not think we need a category for women who won it. That leaves the actresses, which might be valid in that some prizes are for women only, but I do not think we need to keep a category for one subcat, which is all that would be left. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what if I create Category: Canadian women award winners to house all the individual women which are now in this parent category? Will this solve this issue? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
    • As Bearcat says above "such categories are only appropriate when gender has a defining relationship with the topic (such as a category for winners of a notable Best Actress award), and are not meant to be an automatic feature of every category tree that happens to hold people". With that in mind, do you think your suggestion will solve the issue? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding "Canadian" to the title would not change the fact that the mere fact of being women who won awards is not a defining point of commonality between a woman who won the Nobel Prize and a woman who won the "North Battleford, Saskatchewan Garden of the Year Award". It's not a situation where gender is relevant at all. Gender is relevant to award-winning only to the extent that the award itself is specifically for women, such as the Oscar for Best Actress. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is grouping a wide variety of women with little in common, save winning an award in something. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 15 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:Arab–Israeli conflict media[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Arab–Israeli conflict media to Category:Media about the Arab–Israeli conflict
Category:Arab–Israeli conflict books to Category:Books about the Arab–Israeli conflict
Category:Arab–Israeli conflict films to Category:Films about the Arab–Israeli conflict

Rationale: The current names of these categories are ambiguous - they aren't about conflict media (or conflict books or conflict films) which is/are Arab-Israeli. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Her Pegship (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these suffer the same problem as nearly all "media about", "films about", "books about" categories: how much about the topic must it be, objectively defined as a notable genre, and what reliable sources say that each categorized work is at least that much about the topic? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Better description of the contents.Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 8 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:1970s in Southern Rhodesia[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 to Category:1970s in Rhodesia. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, a duplicate of Category:1970s in Rhodesia. --Katangais (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change Different contents different land area inclusion. Rhodesia includes both Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Rhodesia did not exist in the 1970s; it ceased to be as a territory in 1964. --Katangais (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Southern Rhodesia no longer existed in 1970. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - to quote the Southern Rhodesia article: Following its Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 it existed as the self-declared, unrecognised state of Rhodesia until 1979 - so it was called "Rhodesia" in 1970. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:28, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_7&oldid=1059130865"