Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 10

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

October 10[edit]

Category:Buildings of Downtown Houston (demolished)[edit]

The following is 9 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) 03:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT whose parent category Category:Buildings of Downtown Houston is also up for CFD with an emerging consensus to upmerge it to the citywide category. There are enough demolished buildings in Houston to justify the target category, but not enough to justify further subcategorizing them by which particular neighborhood of Houston they happened to be located in. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 10 October 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 art history[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although it's not an exactly 100% rule, we do have a strong preference for using "in Country" to categorize inanimate objects and concepts, while reserving "Demonym" primarily for people categories. It's reflected in Category:Art history, for example -- although not many other "art history by individual country" categories seem to exist yet, the ones that do are all named "History of art in Country" rather than "Demonym art history". And an obvious parallel to this, Category:History of sport by country, also already follows the "History of sport(s) in Country" pattern. I originally listed this for speedy, which was opposed on the grounds that two sibling categories aren't really enough to establish that there's already a consensus in place -- so accordingly I also want to establish that "History of art in Country" should be the naming convention for new categories of this type. This should be renamed in line with the similar categories that already exist, rather than those categories being renamed in line with this. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nom requested a rename, not a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 11 October 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:Brian Kelly (composer) compilation albums[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: The result of this discussion was an unanimous delete, based both on the votes here, as well as on the result of the related Afd. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Self-promotional category that will soon include zero articles. See primary deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pools of Light. Sn00per (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of this CfD should follow the outcome of the AfD noted by the nominator above. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:43, 11 October 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:Two-letter disambiguation pages[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) 03:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Substantially identical versions of these categories, and the disambiguation templates that applied them, were definitively deleted as a result of discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Character Combination lists and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9#Template:2CC. I cannot locate any record of a consensus for recreating the categories. This makes them eligible for speedy deletion under criterion CSD G4. However, I'm creating this discussion instead as there is a possibility that (a) I am wrong, and there was an undeletion discussion that I couldn't locate (in which case, please point me to it), and/or (b) consensus about the use of these categories has changed since they were deleted nine years ago. In the latter case, I'd be interested in hearing any new arguments for keeping these categories, as I don't understand how they are useful for search or navigation.
(Note that this reasoning doesn't include Category:One-letter disambiguation pages, which doesn't seem to be a recreation of a deleted category. However, if the consensus here is to re-delete the two-, three-, and four-letter categories, then there is probably no reason for keeping the one-letter category.)
Pings to those involved in the previous deletion discussions

@32X, A bit iffy, Abtract, Alerante, Alex43223, Althepal, BanyanTree, Barticus88, Benedict the Moor, Bkonrad, Bogdangiusca, BuickCenturyDriver, CarolGray, Cool Cat, CyberSkull, Dagnabit, Doczilla, Enochlau, Ewlyahoocom, Fayenatic london, Freakofnurture, Freekee, GW Simulations, Gracenotes, Grubber, Iamanonimu, Indolences, Jayvdb, Jerry, Josh Parris, Kellen`, KelleyCook, Ketiltrout, and Kolindigo: @Lordmetroid, Lugnuts, Miguel Andrade, Mikkalai, Msh210, Mwtoews, Natalya, Necrothesp, Night Gyr, Noclip, Pascal.Tesson, Patricknoddy, Peter Isotalo, Pilotguy, Poorleno, Qxz, R'n'B, Radiant!, Renesis13, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Pinch, RoySmith, ST47, Scoutersig, Scraimer, Shanes, Sjakkalle, Smack, SnowFire, ThePurpleMonkey, TwinsMetsFan, Vishwin60, Ybbor, Zachary Gibbons, Cool Cat~enwiki, and Ben: @Presidentman, Renesis, O, and John Vandenberg:

—Psychonaut (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember seeing something about being useful for tracking these, but my annoyance with them is we discourage dab cats and prefer to use parameters in the disambiguation template (similar to "geo, surname etc"). If useful, suggest migrating these to the template and detailing their use in WP:MOSDAB (or at minimum the latter). Widefox; talk 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Widefox, your !vote is "delete" but your suggestion is to still have that categorisation but only via the template, right? Then how would the category be populated if it's deleted? – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • iff keeping, then suggest moving them inside the template. Widefox; talk 17:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The question is probably how we should parent dabpages for abbreviations. I would suggest that the 3- and 4-letter categories need splitting by initial letter, as there are much too many members for a useful category. Nevertheless, If I wanted to know what DOBL stood for I would search for that and expect either to be redirected or to find a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is established precedent that we don't categorise based solely on the form of article titles. As Peterkingiron points out, I don't see these being useful to end users, so I guess they must be maintenance categories, though I don't understand the benefit to having them. If we do keep them, we need to document how they're useful.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 00:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've notified two editors that I've recently seen populating these categories: 50.26.181.175 (talk) and Brycehughes. – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there seems no great reason to keep. Brycehughes (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a pointless categorisation. If I was looking for a 2/3/4 letter disambiguation page, I'd not be looking for these categories. Joseph2302 16:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cannot see any point at all. S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; useless category. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all and possibly make them hidden. There exist various standard identifiers (like the 3- and 4-letter ICAO codes for airports and airlines, or the 2- or 3-letter ISO 639 codes for languages) that are often included on disambiguation pages. With these categories in place, it's easier to track down which eligible disambiguation pages don't have them yet and hence would need expanding. – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure I follow you. Could you give further details, possibly by way of an example? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example uz is the ISO 639-1 code for the Uzbek language and there is an entry for it on the dab page at Uz. On the other hand, ak is the code for the Akan language but it isn't listed on the disambiguation page Ak – so that's a gap that needs filling. If we wanted to find and amend all such gaps, then the task will be made easier by the presence of these categories. – Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I still don't follow. How, exactly, would this particular task be made easier by the presence of these categories? Can you walk me through the steps? Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't have a specific workfow in mind, but what I imagine is something like this: get some tool to check each page in Category:Three-letter disambiguation pages whether it contains the string "ISO 639"; and output a list of dab pages that don't have it. The corresponding entries could then get added by hand. The existence of the categories saves the effort of going through all eligible dab pages. I'm not programmer, so I'd presume there are ways to do that that don't use categories, but that's bound to be more complicated. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're using a tool for to generate such a list, I'm still not sure I see any clear need for the categories, since Category:Disambiguation pages should work just as well. There might be some performance difference, but just playing around a bit with a search like "ISO 639" incategory:"Disambiguation pages" doesn't take overly long. Haven't used AWB in a while, but it's probably possible to do something similar there. older ≠ wiser 16:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm.. well, that could work for the cases I have in mind, so the category probably won't be necessary for that. Changing my !vote to a weak keep – but a keep nevertheless as we still haven't heard from the creators of these categories and we can't know if the purpose they had in mind could be served by other means. – Uanfala (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Why stop at four letters? Is there some distinguishing characteristic for these apart from length? older ≠ wiser 13:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there are many standard identifiers longer than four letters. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 18 October 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:Yugoslav Committee[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) 00:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The committee's seven founding members are already listed at the main article. Any other members should be added to a list at that article. Zoupan 06:40, 10 October 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:Transport Research[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:Transport research organisations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Decap. Not a proper noun. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 10 October 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_October_10&oldid=1138410345"