Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11[edit]

Category:All articles needing cleanup[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. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories cover the same topic. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment my comment about the following Cfd referred to 'Propose merging Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup to Category:Articles needing cleanup'. I have/had no opinion on either, but just thought there should be some consistency about articles and pages Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the two categories do not cover the same topic; many pages are not articles. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This needs sorting as there are 21,000+ articles in Category:All pages needing cleanup and nearly 18,000 articles in Category:All articles needing cleanup. A random inspection has not thrown up any duplicates. "All pages" is the older cat, having been created in 2006. "All articles" was created in 2010 by User:Bsherr who has not edited since 2011. I looked at his editing around the time he created "All articles", and found this discussion: Template_talk:Cleanup/Archive_5#Correcting_to_apply_to_all_namespaces. The intention was initially to replace "All pages" with "All articles", but then it was felt it might be useful to have "All pages" as a parent cat holding "All articles" plus other cats holding other pages or files needing maintenance. That appears not to have been done effectively as some maintenance templates put articles in "All pages", and other templates put articles in "All articles". I'm not seeing an advantage of keeping two cats which split the articles needing maintenance randomly into two different categories, nor an advantage to having "All pages" as a parent when we already have Category:Wikipedia cleanup, which does that job more effectively. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support. Non-article pages shouldn't be showing up in these categories, so all the pages that belong in this tree are also articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (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:Palak Muchhal[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) 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category populated only with its eponymous article. Doesn't appear that there is or would be any other related content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:58, 11 April 2017 (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:Universities and colleges in Midland, Texas[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Single-item category with no prospect of expansion, 'cos it it is the only uni in Midland, Texas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Merge – per nom. A extreme example of WP:SMALLCAT which is too specific with no potential for growth. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2017 (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:Silesian American[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 ping user:Piotrus to follow up related categories. – Fayenatic London 06:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an OR category; the term Silesian American is an OR invention of the editor who created it; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian Americans (where the argument that there is a category, so the concept is notable, has already been used... sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Presumably the child categories and its Australian, Canadian and Israeli siblings should also be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Can we expand this nom to consider those or do we need a separate one(s)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I normally do in these circumstances is adding the additional categories to the Propose deleting on top of this section and add the text added 12 April. And of course the category pages need to be tagged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2017 (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:Culture of the Dutch Golden Age[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. – Fayenatic London 06:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this just contains a single subcategory and is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2017 (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:Economy of the Dutch Republic[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. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2017 (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:Muslim-majority countries[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. I was going to convert it to List of Muslim-majority countries but there is already more info at Islam by country. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded navigation: there's no scheme of Category:Countries by religious majority. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 11 April 2017 (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:Pioneers of music 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: delete the category, but a properly sourced list may be worth a try. Here is a link to the deletions. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Borderline trivial and virtually impossible to identify who belongs: imagine all of the bands which could be considered "one of the first anarcho-sludge doommetal bands in Asia". Maybe listify if there are strict rules about sourcing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too vague (and possibly WP:OR) to be of use. Largely per nom. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ill-defined enough that whether or not an article should be included in the category would be largely subjective. I'm not even sure if a stable list article along these lines is possible, but as a category it definitely doesn't work.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:CATDEF, the category concerns a defining characteristic of a subject of the article. According to Merriam-Webster, a "pioneer" is defined as:
  • a person or group that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity or a new method or technical development
  • one of the first to settle in a territory
Don't know why this CfD was brought up without mentioning Category:Television pioneers, Category:Cinema pioneers, Category:Science pioneers, etc., which operate on identical principles. This is pretty clear and objective criteria - and notable for the topic of music genres. Examples include Yellow Magic Orchestra for synth-pop, Aphex Twin for IDM, the Byrds for folk rock, Joe Meek for experimental pop, Black Sabbath for heavy metal, Fela Kuti for Afrobeat, King Crimson for progressive rock, My Bloody Valentine for shoegaze, and so on. All are verifiable at each music genre and artist article. They also often appear in the articles' leads.
Some retroactive genres, like proto-prog and proto-punk, are characterized for being "prototypes" of a genre they lead to - that means they're occupied exclusively by pioneers of later styles.
As for the nom's argument, the list would obviously not accommodate "first anarcho-sludge doommetal bands in Asia" because such a band would not be pioneering or innovating a music genre (unless they are literally one of the first anarcho-sludge doommetal bands and just happen to be Asian). There are currently only 100 entries, and none of them are trivial artists nobody's heard of. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Singers/bands are already in many (more-defining) categories. TV pioneers, for example, (e.g. Maurice Leblanc) aren't. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See below response--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful category with a clear definition. And inclusion is easy to verify – from works about a specific genre; from artist bios at AllMusic, in Rolling Stone reference books, etc; and from musicological assessments of a particular artist's work or of an entire era of musical development. Looking at the current list, at least half the entries are beyond doubt "pioneers" in a specific genre, imo, so it's not as if the category has become a dumping ground for all and sundry. I've only added one name to it: George Harrison, who's not only recognised by music writers as a pioneer in raga rock and world music, but he received his Billboard Centenary Award partly in acknowledgement of the pioneering role he played in establishing the latter genre. So, as long as we ensure that entries in the category are adequately sourced – as is always the case – I can't see any problem. JG66 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George Harrison is currently in over 50 categories. See WP:DNWAUC etc. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And The Left Banke is in 6 while Albert Einstein is in over 60. What is your point? If it's "pioneering a music genre isn't a significant/defining characteristic" then see below comment --Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In no particular order, here's a (very non-exhaustive) list of articles where "pioneered a music genre" is mentioned in the very first paragraph or sentence of the lead
Some people inextricably associated with pioneering a style of music
That doesn't include articles where it's mentioned in the lead's second or third paragraph (almost every entry in the category mentions the fact somewhere in the lead).-Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incapable of objective definition, of no encyclopedic value, and invariably leading to subjective and futile editing conflicts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: Can you (or anybody else) explain how the dictionary definition of a pioneer isn't objective? Is it "subjective" to note that "See My Friends" is one of the first raga rock songs? If so, does that mean Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin is debatable as well?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's subjective. "Genres" are subjective. "Pioneers" in genres are subjective. It's not like someone discovering a new treatment, or venturing to a new island and "pioneering" settlement there - which are objective facts. Music is a constantly changing and fluid art form - with everyone influencing everyone else. It is not comparable in any way with an objective new discovery or invention. Of course, reliable sources may well state that someone is a "pioneer" - but that is a subjective critical assessment. Sources will inevitably differ. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd point once you follow it to its logical conclusion, which would mean ending everything under Category:Categories by genre. If somebody records a rock song, Wikipedia categorizes it as a rock song. If somebody is a pioneer of their field, Wikipedia categorizes them as a pioneer of that field. No POV issues there. But for some reason, if somebody records a song that's generally accepted as a pioneering work of early rock and roll (let's say "Gee"), it's suddenly POV? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one would be more delighted than me if the subjective idea of "music genre" was banned from this encyclopedia forever - or, at least, avoided 90% of the time. The fact that "Gee" may be widely accepted as an early rock and roll recording doesn't make its description as "pioneering" any less subjective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the category itself is fine... the problem lies with populating the category. We need to keep our own views on an artist out of Wikipeida (per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), and focus on the views of high quality sources (per WP:V and WP:RS). In this case, inclusion needs to be limited to those artists who are routinely described as being "pioneers" by high quality sources. Unfortunately, this highlights a fundamental flaw with how categorization works on Wikipedia... we have no means of verification - no mechanism for citing sources to support inclusion in a category. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is exactly why I feel that while a list article of musical pioneers might work, the category is impossible to maintain.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to delete, this is a difficult one and especially difficult to determine whether the characteristic is defining and/or subjective. User:DexDor has a point though, this is a category typically containing members who are often already heavily categorized by other characteristics. We're simply making the categorization system useless when an article is in dozens of categories as it merely leads to a massive category clutter at the bottom of the page that nobody can make sense of. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2017 (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/2017_April_11&oldid=1138410485"