Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28[edit]

Category:2015 in San Jose, California[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 and move content to parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overly narrow category. we dont need this for san jose, san fran doesnt even have it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to narrow to create anything but an entire tree of under-populated categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is overly narrow, given the content we have. --PanchoS (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:58, 30 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:2010 in Berkeley, California[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) 05:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overly narrow categorization. we dont need years in berkeley, history of berkeley is adequate. we dont even have years in san francisco, which is the only city with enough history to justify it in the area. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine The outcome of this nomination should match the one above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 29 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:2010 in the San Francisco Bay Area[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. There's both consensus here and a good deal of precedent for not having year categories for this type of region. Decades as an end-level category is unusual, and there's no consensus here on any particular merge target. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: overly narrow categorization. we dont even have san francisco by year, and years by region seems too vague. I dont even think we need decades in sfba . we do have Category:Centuries in San Francisco, California. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mercurywoodrose: Note that I merged the two former nominations and added the third (2016) category, so we have a single discussion about all of these. I hope you're okay with that. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now and give some WP:POTENTIAL. It may be convenient to have a category if you wanted to find out what happened in 20xx in the SF Bay Area. If the category turns out to not have as many articles as I thought it'd have, I guess we can delete at that point.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:11, 9 June 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:Sociocultural globalization[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) 05:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename category to align with article name Cultural globalization. It was nominated for speedy rename but opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of oppose at CFDS
Oppose The original name is derived from the article Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both social science and culture studies. Since it is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, I do not see how it qualifies for "speedy" rename. There has been no explanation given on the category talk page. Meclee (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is opposed here for the same reason: The original name is derived from the article Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both social science and culture studies. It is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, There has been no explanation given on the category talk page. Meclee (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is generally a preference to name categories after articles, if possible. An issue on the side here is that it's not really clear what the difference is between "sociocultural" and "cultural". We have very few articles and categories that start with "sociocultural", and culture seems to be an aspect of society anyway (Category:Culture is a child category of Category:Society). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sociocultural means society+culture, but it is not a well defined term. We have and article on Sociocultural evolution (which are roughly about "evolution of societies and cultures" that originally tried to apply Darwinian thinking to this), but there is no parent sociocultural category, nor is there a concept of socioculture or sociocultural studies or whatsnot in science. (There's some Sociocultural theory in linguisics, too, through I have little idea what it is about). Bottom line, there's no "socioculture" parent, because sociocultural=society+culture, and is used only in the context of sociocultural evolution or theory - not in globalization. See my rationale for support below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To match reasonably named main article. If Meclee would like to propose a RM for that article and it passes, we could of course speedily rename this back. Disagreements about the article names should not be rehashed in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I switched the <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags to address the problem of the linked article name, since that was an objection. The difference between "cultural" and "sociocultural" is the difference between Humanties and Social science. Articles contained in the category under discussion could be of interest to both disciplinary areas. The "sociocultural" label is not unusual. A related category is Category:Sociocultural evolution, which articles address related theory. Meclee (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: To my knowledge, there is not now or has there in the past been a discussion in article namespace about renaming article Culture. That title is good for that article. The current status of Category:Sociocultural globalization arose due to different editors at different times attaching different <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags, thus confusing the two labels. As stated above, those tags have now been changed to an appropriate order. Meclee (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think sociocultural globalization is just a synonym for cultural globalization. We have no redirect for that, we have a section Globalization#Sociocultural_globalization - but the term is not used elsewhere in the article, the very section talks about cultural globalization. The term is used in some books or academic papers, but I don't see anywhere where it is defined in a clear way as something different from cultural globalization. The best ref and definition I see is for Stephen K. Sanderson (17 November 2015). Modern Societies: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge. pp. 169–. ISBN 978-1-317-25602-1., but their reference to Georg Krücken; Gili S. Drori (17 June 2010). World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-161565-8. is misleading, at least as far as that source does not use that term at all. With <200 hits on GBooks and <100 on GScholar, I do not think the concept of sociocultural globalization is notable at all. Few scholars use it because it sounds more smartsy then just saying cultural globalization, and one section in one book has tried to define it, not doing a very good job at it. It is as meaningless neologism as socioeconomic globalization (also <200 GBook hits) or social globalization, a term which seems to be used on occasion but I cannot even find a definition of it. There are big and well-defined subglobalization concepts: cultural globalization, economic globalization, Political globalization (which badly needs more visibility in our globalization article and a dedicated article - I'll see if I can stub it at least), Financial globalization has tens of thousands of hits (I just created a disambig for now). But no, sociocultural globalization is nothing but a word few sociologists used to sound more smart. (I say all of that as a sociologist who is interested in globalization - and hates unnecessary neologism some scientists coin to try to add their own brand to what is already a well defined concept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Elegant simplicity! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:18, 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:Lawn weeds[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 mostly as per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While the editors opposing deletion argued that lawn weeds are a regularly covered group of items, they didn't address any of the issues with defining the inclusion criteria for this category. Plants that are weeds in one situation may not be in another. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Any plant can be viewed as "lawn weed" when it is among monoculture turf grass or as desired plant, when it is organic lawn for example. Cathry (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the entries appear to be sourced as commonly known weeds. --Zfish118⋉talk 01:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Weediness" is a matter of opinion, not a defining characteristic of a plant. It's a potentially sourceable opinion, but I'm not seeing that the entries actually have sources for the categorization. Pennisetum clandestinum notes that's it's grown as a lawn grass, not a weed in lawns. Arctium and Rumex crispus might be considered weeds, but they don't survive repeated mowing, and thus aren't weeds of lawns. Plantdrew (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 3 of 17 currently in the category even state in their article that they are a "lawn weed," and only one of those has a source. One of the three states it as an opinion by the omnipresent "some people", "considered weeds in North American lawns by some people." One of them, Achillea millefolium is actually sourced as a lawn replacement and some of them are described as beneficial weeds. Many seem simply to be beautiful native flowers that some editor has discovered in their lawn, or more likely, garden. First Light (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We go by the reliable sources, not personal anecdotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 1 June 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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion[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. I closed this discussion to match the outcome here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Title is misleading. There are no dioceses (plural) in Réunion. The Church is organised as a single diocese. Delete per WP:small cat. Move single content to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Réunion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Roman Catholic Church in Reunion, to preserve place in subcategories. --Zfish118⋉talk 01:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: do you mean that the category-redirect page should remain within its current head categories, e.g. Category:Roman Catholic dioceses by country? We don't normally categorise category-redirect pages. Readers would instead have to look in the sub-cat for lists, Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses by country, as they could still navigate from the single-entry list page for Reunion. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the technical limits of categories. Placing a redirect for the article "list of dioceses in Reunion" to "Diocese of Reunion" (or its equivalent) in "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion" would seem to achieve the ends that I propose. --Zfish118⋉talk 17:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also this nomination. The two discussions should be closed together. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine This nomination should follow the outcome of the earlier nomination, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 11 June 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:Top lists[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as duplication of Category:Lists of superlatives. Trivialist (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 30 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:Weapon used in assassination of an U.S. President[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) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article about a specific weapon (John F. Kennedy assassination rifle); the rest are about types of weapons (British Bull Dog revolver, Carcano, Derringer) for which being used in a presidential assassination is not a defining characteristic. (Also, the name is grammatically incorrect.) Trivialist (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not defining of the weapons. If, as in the isolated case of the JFK rifle, we had standalone articles about the individual specimens that were used in the assassinations, then a better-named version of this would be acceptable — but it is in no way a defining characteristic of the general article about a type of weapon. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every piece of trivia it's possible to create a list for; we categorize on defining characteristics, not on every last historical factoid that a topic can possibly be linked to. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' this is a really silly way of categorizing weapons. Pichpich (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Even if there was an article on every individual weapon used in presidential assassinations, this category would still be tiny. Because there have been only four successful presidential assassinations. I think this is a case Small with no potential for growth: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 4 June 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:Lists of cheapest things[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) ~ RobTalk 05:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently contains only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 28 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:Roman Catholic bishops from Réunion[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Réunionnais seems to be the adjective for a person from Réunion, as the one page in this cat refers to the subject as the "Réunionnais Bishop", and this should be renamed to follow the general pattern of the cat. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 28 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:Glimcher Realty Trust[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: relisting here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Glimcher Realty Trust no longer exists. The company is now known as WP Glimcher, and the WP Glimcher name is used on their malls, such as this page, which says "Managed by WP Glimcher" at the bottom of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 June 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:Canadian Business Hall of Fame[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) 02:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Canadian Business Hall of Fame is a Junior Achievement award for prominent business people. Everyone in this category should already by in Category:Canadian businesspeople by industry and Category:Canadian businesspeople by province or territory. I went through 10 of the 100 people in this category and 2 mentioned the award in passing and 8 not at all. There is already a list of the winners here – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified TruthbringerToronto as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Business. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 28 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:Recipients of the Bulgarian Memorial Medal of the European War 1915-1918[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) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
There is no main article and these 2 categories contain just 1 article: Miklós Horthy who isn't Bulgarian nor did he fight in/for Bulgaria. Since Bulgaria joined WWI late and lost badly, the award either was given out sparingly or wasn't bragged about after the war. The award is so obscure that most Google search results point to these categories, but some sites are selling a reproduction so the award must have existed but it's tough to verify recipients. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Afil as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Bulgaria. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background I nominated all the other 1-article award categories for Miklós Horthy here but I overlooked this one with that nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a commemorative medal. Not awarded for any individual merit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 1 June 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_28&oldid=1075704837"