Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Users who graduated with honors categories[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) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. These categories don't do anything to help build the encyclopedia. First off, they are misnamed - User categories almost universally use a "Wikipedians who" naming convention to avoid confusion with mainspace categories, so I would submit that, at minimum, these need a rename. However, I would highly advocate deletion over a rename as these categories violate WP:USERCAT in that there is no encyclopedic purpose to go out seeking people in these categories. Someone who happened to graduate with honors is no more or less likely to collaborate on a particular topic than anyone else. In sum, there is no encyclopedic reasoning to specifically seek out and group users who hold themselves out to have these particular honors. These categories reek of bragging moreso than actual usefulness for collaboration. Somewhat similar "award/status" type categories have been deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 19 November 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.

0-level categories[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) 07:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. 0-level categories for people who do not speak a language are not useful to categorize users in - we don't categorize people by something they don't do. Extensive precedent here for deleting similar categories. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 19 November 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:User ru-0.5[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) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Merge. "Wikipedians who speak Russian at less than the basic level." This goes outside of the standard babel system we have and is some sort of incremental category for those who are less than Category:User ru-1. A similar category was merged to the 1-level in this CfD, so I'd be okay with that as well. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I was the only one in the category and it is now empty. There is an associated userbox {{user ru-0.5}} which should be deleted when the category goes. JbhTalk 22:16, 19 November 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:People, after which named in honor asteroids[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, along with sub-cats Category:Scientists, after which named in honor asteroids and Category:Speculative fiction writers, after which named in honor asteroids; and Category:Speculative fiction writers who have asteroids named after them, Category:Speculative fiction writers who have asteroids named after them which seem to have been created by out-of-process moves. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another name would also be possible, but this one just doesn't parse. Its subcategories should also be either renamed or upmerged. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria If you want to rename a category, I do not mind, but the proposed name does not reflect the essence, this refers to the asteroids, which are named in honor of certain people. --Yasnodark (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category needs to be renamed, together with its subcategories. The present name is crooked! But I too, like the previous editor, would like to see a better rename proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DebresserWhat your propozition? You're welcome to suggest possible altered names?

Category:People, after which called asteroids or Category:People, after which called minor planets? Name in german of this category Kategorie:Namensgeber für einen Asteroiden, maybe it will help you..--Yasnodark (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or even shorter: Category:People with asteroids named after them? Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support this, and we should transfer any new naming scheme to all subcategories. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something (the German category has 1,310 members). One might alternatively wonder whether this is a defining honour for a person. Eg is Pythagoras defined by having an eponymous asteroid? Oculi (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Olfactory below. We categorise by major national or international honours such as Oscars and Nobel Prizes, not by minor honours such as honorary degrees or arbitrary choices (such as this). Oculi (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, because the current one is grammatically incorrect. I don't suppose the phrase "name giver" exists in English? Then perhaps Category:Eponyms of asteroids? --HyperGaruda (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Delete per precedent mentioned by Good Olfactory. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eponyms of asteroids" should include more namesakes than just people, but it would make for a good parent category. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with this title St Category:People, who have asteroids named after them, but it is a pity that with such a title does not say anything about the importance of the event and honor for a man. After all, the name of the asteroid in honor of a person is equal to the awarding of the prize.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with with De728631"Eponyms of asteroids" should include more namesakes than just people, but it should include : countries, streets, organisms and other..--Yasnodark (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC
  • Delete. I don't think we should get into the habit of categorizing people (or anything else for the matter) who are namesakes of other things. This is not a categorization of asteroids, it is a categorization of people. A list is much more appropriate for this on Wikipedia. This was recognized quite early on in Wikipedia, and such a category was deleted in 2005. As such, this is re-created material. We should also delete the subcategories, Category:Scientists, after which named in honor asteroids, and Category:Speculative fiction writers, after which named in honor asteroids, both of which I have tagged for nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason for delete. Asteroids are not namesakes people, they are named in their honor as a reward for their achievements, most noted scientists and speculative fiction writers, because they are often inspired by the discoverers of asteroids. Without them, these findings simply would not have been.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realise you disagree, but I do believe there is a very good reason for deletion. Having an asteroid named after oneself is not a defining characteristic, and categories are supposed to categorize by defining characteristics. The people who have asteroids named after them are primarily notable for things other than having an asteroid named after them. A non-notable person is unlikely to have an asteroid named after them. Thus, what is defining for them is something other than having the asteroid named after them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Good Ol’factory here. There exist all kind of orders people receive, and we have categories for almost all of them. Having an astroid named after oneself is like that too, and justifies having a category, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: You've committed the classic philosophical blunder of confusing "is" with "ought". A lot of categories might exist, but that doesn't mean that they should. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It just so happens that several hundred categories for various orders have been deleted over the past 12 months, so it's no longer true that "we have categories for almost all of them". You've participated in several of those discussions, so I'm not sure how you can be unaware of this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? I don't remember this. In general, I think that orders are defining categories (directly as well as indirectly). Debresser (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my memory is faulty. You would have a better memory of what you have done than I would, so I'm inclined to withdraw my last sentence above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and its subcategories to Category:Scientists with asteroids named after them and Category:Speculative fiction writers with asteroids named after them. —Bruce1eetalk 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Yasnodark did not wait for this discussion to wrap up and be closed, but created Category:People who have asteroids named after them plus subcategories. I could live with those page names but that's just not how collaborative editing and achieving consensus is supposed to work. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 I just did not want a long time in the articles was the name with strongly marked errors, if the majority would vote for the name of Category: People with asteroids named after them, ... And its subcategories to Category: Scientists with asteroids named after them and Category: Speculative fiction writers with asteroids named after them or other names, it will be possible to rename. But to me they seem to be less accurate and correct, although, plus of alternative names - short of them.. With respect--Yasnodark (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, StAnselm HyperGaruda, Bruce1ee, Debresser. You are satisfied with the name in its present form?--Yasnodark (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I condemn in the strongest words the actions of Yasnodark! This was an out of order rename. If you do this once more, be sure that I'll ask to have you blocked. In addition, I and Bruce1ee have expressed a preference for "with" instead of "who have", so no, I am not happy with this at all. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yasnodark, see WP:CFD and WP:CFDAI – you need to wait for the discussion to close before taking action. —Bruce1eetalk 17:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce1eeGot it, I wanted to do better, because everyone said that the previous name wrong. I said, I agree with another correct names. But what your opinion about the new name?--Yasnodark (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, that's a bit harsh, it seems Yasno was acting in good faith and simply isn't familiar with process. :::Either "with" or "who have" is fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a bit harsh. On the other hand, it is not hard to understand that if people are discussing something, you should leave it alone. At least in this way, they will not make the same mistake a second time. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "... with asteroids named after them", as Debresser and I suggested above. —Bruce1eetalk 17:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "... with asteroids named after them" is better. StAnselm (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've redirected the newly created categories back to the ones that were originally nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These categories must be either renamed or deleted. "People, after which named in honor asteroids" is simply not English, and I can only assume that whoever created them is not a native English speaker. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion the category "Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids" rename to "Category:People with asteroids named after them". Category "Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids" delate, and with the category of Category:People who have asteroids named after them to do a redirect to the category "Category:People with asteroids named after them"".--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the non-English category names should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background: See this discussion from 3 months ago that ended in Delete: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Category:Asteroids named as an award. (This is in addition to Good Ol’factory's example from 2005 that also ended in Delete.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, the people in this category are not defined by the fact that an asteroid is named after them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that is a characteristic but not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 28 November 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:Indian female adult models[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 but it seems that the scope of the category isn't entirely clear so it may be an option to discuss renaming the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Indian female models, as most people in that category will be adults Joseph2302 11:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – see Category:Adult models. "This category and its subcategories are restricted to people verified to be "adult models" by occupation, according to reliable published sources. It is only for models who appear in adult-oriented materials, not merely for models who are adults, or who have done some "glamour" work." So there could be a subcat Category:Indian child female adult models. Oculi (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- After looking a long way, I found that basically we had two categories, a male one and a female one. We do not seem to have child model categories, at least not Indian ones. However This category has a lot of siblings. I hope this is intended as a test nom, to be followed by a mass nom of all the rest. An alternative would ne for the target for both to be Category:Indian women models, with men and child (or girl and boy) siblings. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Female adult models by nationality Adult here is models who modeled or posed nude for their modeling assignments or did explicit scenes in main stream cinema same as in categories such as italian adult models, american adult models etc. Adult here means explicit and for adults, why making a big deal just because it is India.Nartanasala (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a category for nude models. "Adult model" is an euphemism. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 30 November 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:Crime data[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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/downmerge per main article Crime statistics and the parent category doesn't seem big enough to be kept separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 19 November 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_November_19&oldid=1074817245"