Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10[edit]

Category:Articles created or improved by Dundee Oral Health Wikipedia Group 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize (talk pages of) articles by which groups of editors have edited them (this is the only "Articles created or improved by ..." category in En Wp) - over time it would lead to some pages being in dozens/hundreds of such categories. See previous CFDs (e.g. this). Note: It would be quite appropriate for a wikiproject to use one of the pages belonging to that wikiproject to keep a list of pages they've edited. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As creator, I followed the lead of other groups who are using talk page categories in templates to identify on talk pages and in categories the articles created by off wiki editing events/groups. For example see Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism 2016 for another group using a similar template and category. See previous years Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism events It is incredibly helpful to notify other users that a member of a group has edited the article. Plus it assists with quickly finding the articles created by an group for monitoring the progress of the editing group. There is no reason to eliminate the talk page templates and category when they are useful today just because of potential issues that MIGHT occur later. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other similar templates that create categories Template:Educational assignment that was used for classroom assignments for years prior to the new system developed by Wiki Ed Foundation. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥
See WP:OSE. Afaics every time categories like this have been brought to CFD they've been deleted - e.g. in February. Why do you think it is "incredibly helpful to notify other users that a member of a group has edited the article"? - especially in several years time. This category currently puts pages such as Talk:Lymphatic system under categories such as Category:Wikipedia events and Category:Wikipedians in Dundee (note: when this category was created it put the pages in different categories such as Category:Unassessed medicine articles which was also incorrect).
The unusual categorization caused by this category disrupts/complicates maintenance activities; I use category intersection queries to detect pages that are at a strange combinations of categories etc (which for talk pages is often an incorrect reference to a category in a discussion - example fix). This category causes "false positives" during such analysis. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DexDor, I did not add those categories that you mention when I created the category. See it was added by someone else later. [1]. Perhaps, the better solution would be to remove the unneeded categories rather than to delete this useful template and category that makes it easy to monitor the articles created or improved by an Editing Group. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the history of the category. Removing some of the parent categories would be an improvement, but a better solution would be to use a list (e.g. like this) rather than a category. DexDor (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially keep but only as an administrative (talk page) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If such categories are kept then where should we draw the line - e.g. would a category for "Articles created or improved by <editor> in 2016" be ok? When the initiative is over should the template/cat tag be removed? - and if not would (talk pages of) articles (especially those popular with such groups) gradually accrue more and more categories? DexDor (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the fact that these articles have been edited by a certain group of people is trivial information, I don't even see a meaningful maintenance purpose here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ownership issues - not everyone who creates of improves an article (or group thereof) gets any credit other than the CCBYSA or GFDL provides. If we give the nod to some but not others, we're not being fair or assuming that the licenses apply to all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 19 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.

eSports[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) 00:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationale: Per main article, eSport. Note that any category where the word shows up at the beginning, a {{lowercase title}} will display the name correctly on the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support WP:NCCAT. In fact there was previously a CfD to rename these, but for some reason it didn't end up happening--Prisencolin (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the correct way to spell eSports, so the categories should follow it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article. I have no opinion or knowledge on which way is "correct", but have to admit I hate in-word capitalization enough to oppose this form in principal, but making it consistent with the article is worth while, even if it leads to horrible orthography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support. Yes, rename, recat, and add {{lowercase title}} to the cats. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:27, 21 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:Hobbyist 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the difference between Hobbyist organizations and Clubs and societies generally? Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so. Clubs and Societies are not terribly well defined in thenselves, but I don't think separating out Hobbyist organisations helps. Rathfelder (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Obviously, a hobbyist organization is devoted to the practice of a particular hobby. Maybe most "clubs and societies" are such, but it's the latter's lack of clarity which is the problem here. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep keep as a satisfactory way for helping users to navigate among the articles and sub-categories contained herein Hmains (talk) 03:42, 18 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:Burial sites of the Burr family[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) 18:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Burial location isn't a defining characteristic of a family. Only entry is a city, and subcategory has two Burrs buried there. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I am sure we got rid of something similar not long ago. It is in the nature of a Performance category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Westfield2015 created hundreds of these categories last May. Unless there is a pyramid involved, cities are not defined by a single burial. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related Nommination @WilliamJE and Peterkingiron: The parent category and sister categories to this category are nominated for deletion here. Your thoughts (pro/con/other) are always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:24, 17 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:Anglican bishops by diocese in India[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: split into Category:Bishops of the Church of North India by diocese and Category:Bishops of the Church of South India by diocese and convert into a container category. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, since the category doesn't look like a container category, there is no reason to add "by diocese" in the name. Change parenting accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but diffuse. The 12 sub-categories seem to be correct contents of the nominated category; it only needs the biography articles in it to be moved up or down. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: I must've created it with this name to match with the parent category Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Asia. I think it makes sense to rename in accordance with reasons given by Marcocapelle. The Discoverer (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I'm not sure what exactly is broken here. "bishops by diocese in" is a common construct. What's wrong with this particular example? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "by diocese" category ought to be a container category which it currently isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have any objections against splitting in this case, I'm just curious how it would solve the addressed problem of having articles in categories that are supposedly container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only remaining direct members are four lists of bishops which seem to be proxies for diocese articles which haven't been created. They could be moved into the corresponding "bishops of diocese" categories. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into Category:Bishops of the Church of North India by diocese and Category:Bishops of the Church of South India by diocese. This involves an element of anachronism in that these churches were formed by the amalgamation of the Anglican Church with the Methodists and perhaps others. Before that, I assume that there was a single Anglican church, but I do not think that matters unduly: this applies the principle we use on alumni categories for merged or renamed colleges - or rather applies it in reverse. The two new parent categories can be direct children of a worldwide Anglican bishop by province category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the only Anglican predecessors were missionary bishops of the Church of England, who don't seem to appear in these categories. Mangoe (talk) 11:10, 24 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:Economic works[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; merge contents to Category:Works about economics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, alignment of category name with parent Category:Works about economics and clarification that this is a split by medium. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following why e.g. Category:Economics books, which is a subcat of the nominated category, would only contain books with a purely economic content. Books can just as well deal with economic history, poverty etc. The same applies for radio and TV programs. By the way, who decides what is purely economic content? - that would require quite a bit of OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In" or "about" economics, that's not much of a difference. The important difference here is that the category divides "by medium". Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To begin with I wonder if Anti-globalization books are economics books, they are primarily books about a political movement. But for the sake of this category discussion, let's take another ideology-based category that has more to do with economics, like Marxism, then I don't see why books about Marxism are any different (in terms of category assignment) from books about wealth distribution. Do you perhaps aim for a category of works about Philosophy of economics as a topic within Philosophy of science? (but then you should more clearly indicate so). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you go, this is the "about economics" category according to your personal definitions. All other categories can be left as "about economics" according to common language and you may translate those for yourself as "in economics". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • (as nom) If there's no enthusiasm about the proposed rename, I will support this merge alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename differently These are all literature and media, and are better so called. No one has done a ballet or opera on an economics theme, nor are they likely to. We seem to be moving in the wrong direction with these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)
  • I too would prefer to simply delete and merge to Category:Works about economics, which already has works about economics of various types, as does Stefanomione's Category:Economic works. I should add that I'm generally not a big fan of 'works about x by y', and which I recall was part of the reason that led to Stefanomione's first community sanction, several years ago. So I'd prefer to keep it simple here, though certainly some form of merge/rename is desirable. I say delete and merge without leaving a redirect, because I do think it's important that we don't litter Wikipedia categorization with the remnants of a now-banned editor's prolific and disruptive legacy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 31 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:August Media Holdings[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. If an article is ever created, then categorization of the television series as being of August Media Holdings could be reconsidered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reads like an article at this point. Fuddle (talk) 00:38, 10 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:Vosges[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: With the eponymous Vosges mountains being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the category and many of its subcategories are no less ambiguous than its already disambiguated main article Vosges (department), so all we can do here is bringing the categories in line with article namespace. PanchoS (talk) 00:28, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10&oldid=1146512103"