Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Presidents of the Club of Madrid[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. The current and former president who were in this category are both mentioned in the text of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better as if this list appears in the body of the article Club of Madrid. As a category it is non-defining. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 30 March 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:Instrumental and vocal genres[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 for deletion or merging, nor for keeping the present combined category, so rename per nomination, moving sub-cat Category:Vocal music up into Category:Music genres. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename the category and relocate the subcategory Category:Vocal music directly "one step ahead" in the tree to Category:Music genres. The category consists entirely of instrumental music subcategories and articles - and then there is also Category:Vocal music. Is it important to have these two together in the first place? I can see that they are the opposite of each other, but is a combined category required, if they really are just two genres with nothing in common? CN1 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any need for these two things to be combined for a category. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there would be a change beyond renaming (which I'm neutral to), it would have to be upmerging instead of deleting, otherwise the content of the category gets lost. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand completely; what would you upmerge the category with? I thought the main problem is that there are two unrelated topics intermingled (merged) into one category. So, would splitting it (effectively what my renaming achieves) not be more locigal? CN1 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would then be a merge to its only parent Category:Music genres. So, to avoid misunderstandings, my view is: either follow the nomination or upmerge all of it, but surely don't delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 10 April 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:Members of professional organizations[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:Barristers and advocates by place of call and then delete. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful or defining. The categories included would be better renamed. see above . Rathfelder (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following two votes are from the recent aborted nomination on the same category. I'll ping both @Marcocapelle and Oculi: in case their viewpoints have shifted. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep, but containerise. I do see a good case for centralising a cluster of the many many professional organisation categories. If kept, it should be properly populated to include the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Colleges etc. It could be quite big.
    I am not entirely sure that this category is valuable for readers, but it is certainly valauable for editors ... so it might be appropriate for it to become a hidden maintenance category.
    Regardless of anything else, I agree that it should not be for individual people. So I have tagged it[1] as {{container}}, without prejudice to any consensus reached here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think turning it into a container category satisfactorily addresses my concerns.Rathfelder (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on containerisation :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: now that the CFD on the original sub-cat has been closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think lawyers as a profession are distinctive in that they have to be members of the various organisations in order to practice. Clinicians and other professions have to be regulated, but, certainly in the UK, they are not members of the regulating body. I think deleting this category in favour of Category:Barristers and advocates by place of call would be sensible, as naive editors will be tempted to put individuals into an attractive, but non-defining, category.Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My vote remains a delete but the category has changed a lot since nominated. Rathfelder better explains my concerns with the category in its current form. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, since it is only covering English and Scottish barristers. We do not usually categorise people by membership of professional organisations or learned societies, something that will commonly go with membership of a particular profession. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 3 April 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:Mayday Parade 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: delete. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't have a cutoff for number of articles written in, but if "small" categories are not appropriate, then one article is certainly not appropriate. There are exceptions when categories are likely to expand, but this band has been active for nearly a decade. If almost all of their songs are currently non-notable and not worthy of articles, there's little chance of that spontaneously changing in the future. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Except for a list and one article for a song that was covered by this band, this category is simply redundant to Category:Mayday Parade albums because every single entry is a redirect to one of their albums. I don't understand the rationale behind creating a redirect for every song recorded by a band AND categorizing it in such a manner. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is two members that are not redirects and belong in this category. Therefore, per SMALLCAT...--Richhoncho (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even the one article that is not a redirect is not about Mayday Parade, there are just a few lines about the Mayday Parade version of the song. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:. Even if there had been no redirects none of the articles would have been "about Mayday Parade" because they would still be song articles. If, on the other hand, you believe Somebody That I Used to Know should not be a member of this category (i.e. Top 20 in 2 charts as marketed as Mayday Parade is not defining), then I would have to agree to delete a category of only redirects, too.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By lack of existing articles it's not even possible to check if "Mayday Parade" is a defining characteristic. You seem to imply that it's not, so that merely confirms that the category should be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:. Not at all. I am suggesting that if one entry is correct then the category should remain per SMALLCAT. Or, in other words, a category should not contain ONLY redirects, but this category doesn't, does it? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments. My opposition is based on this category containing one non-redirect member, Somebody That I Used to Know. That, together with WP:SMALLCAT, which I have seen the nominator argue passionately and expertly for having categories with one member to a point he convinced me of their worth, makes a keep vote necessary. What the nominator appears not to like is Wikipedia:INCOMPATIBLE which permits and encourages the categorization of redirects in circumstances like these. This discussion should be, perhaps, at either of those guidelines, perhaps redirects are not as cheap as we like to say, or maybe, editors should be discouraged from going through their record collection and adding every song as a redirect. But all these discussions belong elsewhere, not at a single category delete discussion. FWIW, If the solitary song member ceases to be an article in this category then my vote! automatically does revert to a support.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The point of categories is for navigation, and this one adds nothing useful. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Categorization of list entries means that this alphabetical category populated with redirects would have a point if the only available lists were sorted otherwise e.g. by date or by album, but in this case it duplicates List of songs recorded by Mayday Parade. Moreover, two of the cover-song singles listed in the navbox Template:Mayday Parade have separate articles that have never been added to this category AFAICS, supporting Marcocapelle's view that being covered by Mayday Parade is not a defining characteristic. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 13 May 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:Science and Technology in Pakistan stubs[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. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Populated by Template:Pakistan-Science-Technology-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) which I am also nominating for deletion - neither template nor category were proposed at WP:WSS/P; cat does not meet the threshold of 60 articles for a stub category, and template does not meet the 30-article threshold either. In addition to this, neither Category:Science stubs nor Category:Technology stubs are normally subdivided by country (Brazil is an anomaly). Redrose64 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your efforts towards improving wikipedia but according to me Category:Science and Technology in Pakistan stubs should not be deleted because Wikipedia has a lot of similar stubs coming in the near future and a lot of articles also need it.
    Sincerely:
    Pakelectrical —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion: Created out of process and does not meet the requirements. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, the category can be recreated when there are some 60 articles that fit in the category. User:Redrose64, you're mentioning that you have also nominated the template for deletion, where can we find this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here, per the first paragraph at WP:CFD - that is why I included the {{tfdlinks|Pakistan-Science-Technology-stub}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought there was a separate forum for template discussions, isn't that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, except for stub templates, see WP:TFD#What not to propose for discussion here, first bullet. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah okay, learned something new :-) My delete vote applies to both then. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 9 April 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:Channelling[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:Mediumship. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Channelling" is an ambiguous term. For the name of this category, I suggest "mediumistic channelling", which is the term used on the disambiguation page and in the category definition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 30 March 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:Inspired by Ramana Maharshi[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: selectively merge then delete. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presumably this category is meant to be for people inspired by Ramana Maharshi. We could rename it to reflect that, but it's probably better to just upmerge to the parent Category:Neo-Advaita teachers, since we usually don't categorize people based on their influences. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge, because not all articles qualify for Category:Neo-Advaita teachers. Agree with nominator that a category for people inspired by Ramana Maharshi is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, it would be best if not all of them were merged. I'm happy to do the selective merging if the closer of this discussion prefers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modify and Keep Original Name and Shift Over Some Names to Neo-Advaita Teachers I suggest we modify the name of original category to People Inspired by Ramana Maharshi for those who fit this description. The Neo-Advaita teachers (such as Gangaji and Mooji) can be shifted over to the Neo-Advaita category but most of the people on the 'inspired' list died before neo-advaita was even invented, and it would be a totally inappropriate place for them to be categorised since they are not teachers and don't subscribe to any neo-advaitic views.(Iddli (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        • @Iddli: I don't agree, "inspired by" is similar to "associated with", which we don't categorize. 09:11, 25 April 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:Fires beginning October 8, 1871[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) 05:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category for disasters (or anything else, for that matter) that I know of that categorizes by precise date and year. I think categorizing by year is enough for disasters, so I suggest upmerging the contents to the parent category Category:1871 fires. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Categorization by year is sufficient; we do not need to subcategorize them further by exact date. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 3 April 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:Seattle Mariners draft picks[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. As this category (alone out of Category:Major League Baseball draft picks) contains a lot of lists, I will move those to a new Category:Lists of Seattle Mariners draft picks. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Players drafted by a MLB team don't necessarily play for the Mariners; they don't always sign with the MLB team. Other players go undrafted. This is not a defining characteristic of the individuals listed in this category. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The entire structure under Category:Major League Baseball draft picks should probably go. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on this discussion, it appears the entire scheme was abandoned by the category's creator. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh right, I remember that. I can propose a merge on those "draft pick" pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has the vibe of a WP:PERFCAT, although they may not actually perform as the nominator points out. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's defining. That's why many baseball stats sites list who drafted the player in the player page. And the fact that many draftees don't play for the team that drafted them only means that this category is not redundant to "Seattle Mariners players." Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Nobody would ever refer to, for instance, Brett Oberholtzer, as a Mariners draft pick in the way WP:NON-DEFINING lays out. Player pages note all transactions, and we don't have a category of Category:Major League Baseball players who have been traded. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Even if they never play for the team that drafted them, players are often associated with that team. Brien Taylor will always be defined as a Yankee draft pick who never made it. Same with Steve Chilcott for the Mets. Long into his career, Jeff Bagwell was lamented by Red Sox fans as a draft pick who got away. I knew as a small child that Tom Seaver was originally a Braves draft pick (may have been a different draft then) even though he never played in their organization. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The examples of Taylor, Chilcott, and Bagwell are extreme cases that are not representative of the majority of MLB draft picks, because of their specific stories. I had no idea Seaver was drafted by the Braves, and I'm from NY. I don't think he's defined at all by that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Muboshgu's reasoning.--Yankees10 02:31, 5 April 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:Articles lacking sources from 07-03-2016[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, clearly created in error. – Fayenatic London 17:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For some reason an article was created into this category. The article already exists at Mount Star Secondary Boarding School, and I don't think histmerge is needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 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_March_30&oldid=1142533842"