Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 19

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

April 19[edit]

Category:Martha Davis 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: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there is no article for Martha Davis, lead singer of the Motels, a redirect is currently at Martha Davis (rock singer). Due to some ambiguity in the name (and despite that there are no articles on albums by Martha Davis (singer)), one may not know which Martha Davis this is for upon first glance. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As creator of the category and someone who helped Star... empty it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – good idea. Oculi (talk) 10:59, 20 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:Non-Muslim Islamic scholars[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: no consensus to merge, so rename to Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, we usually don't categorize by negatives, and there is no need to have that here because we already have Category:Muslim scholars of Islam so the complement is non-Muslim by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely an improvement over the current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this improves clarity while still matching what are said to be the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 19 May 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:Order of Leopold II recipients[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 without prejudice to a possible further nomination for deletion. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to "Recipients of the Order of Leopold II". For good or ill, that's how we name our "recipients" categories. Herostratus (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, I think users more likely to search on "MedalName Recipients" than "Recipients..." since that generates a huge list which doesn't fit in the result box; but this was decided long ago, and it is not sensible to have this one Order be an exception. We could rename all the others instead. =/ Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 19 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:Founding member of Rivermaya[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 and populate (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 19:15, 19 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:Deaths from suicide[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: redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category strikes me as unnecessary as it isn't a cause of death but rather about who is responsible, and the idea that something other than death occurs from a suicide makes at least the naming questionable (think of "death by killing yourself" -- kind of silly). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An even better reason to delete is that we already have Category:Suicides and its descendants, so this is an apparent duplicating effort. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment how can anyone evaluate this since the category is empty? Hmains (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was being used to fill with people who committed suicide (a duplicate of what we already have), and it contained just a few entries at the point where I nominated it, e.g., Hunter S. Thompson. I would have preferred to speedy it, but there's no "Duplicates other category structure" option. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as an empty duplicate of Category:Suicides. Brandmeistertalk 16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It may be worth keeping it as a cat-redirect to prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct per Peterkingiron. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 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.

Eurodance stub 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: merge to Category:Dance song stubs (as this is initially set up as a sub-cat of Category:Electronic song stubs) and Category:Electronic album stubs respectively. – Fayenatic London 06:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories that weren't created per procedures in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Suggest upmerge to more general stub categories of the genre which aren't super populated either. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:40, 19 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:1990s Dance song stubs[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:1990s dance song stubs. Disclosure: I participated below, but (ii) there is a backlog here at CFD, and (ii) this doesn't seem to be controversial. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It doesn't appear this stub was created following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, so deletion may be warranted. However, since it now exists with over 60 entries, I suggest at least a rename since there is no established scheme for dance song stubs at all. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:15, 19 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:Black African people[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, with selective merge following multiple precedents to Category:People of African descent (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Black people). – Fayenatic London 08:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category is very redundant; "Black African" people is a tautology, much like "White European" people (whose category doesn't exit btw). Plus, the content of this category doesn't justify its existence. Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But not because it's a tautology as Jamie Tubers suggests: there are millions of non-black Africans (altho the continent has a population of 900 million). There is not a scheme for Category:People by race and continent. Effectively, categorizing someone as one of many people groups will suffice: Category: Nuer people, Category:Zulu people, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are plentiful race by country categories, not for the good, but race by continent? Are we going to have Category:White European people or (gulp) Category:Asian Asian people to be NPOV? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the entire continent, even indigenously, is not all "black" - the ethnic groups of North Africa, for example. Simply because many or most are, doesn't mean everyone is. See, for example, Category:French Quebecers. If it is to be deleted, it is on Justin's argument alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is questionable whether many of the peoples of the north African littoral are "Black", though their skin is darker than that of most Europeans. White South Africans are African but not black, and this applies to other ex-colonising minorities, for example in Zimbabwe and East Aftica. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Black people because the 9 articles in the category obviously belong together under that scope. Unlike User:Koavf says, these articles can't be put anywhere lower in the tree. By the way, another reason why black Africans isn't a tautology is because there are also black Australians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 24 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:Radio market navigational boxes[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) 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An obscure cat that, by membership, is redundant to Category:Tamaulipas radio templates. I suspect more templates used to be here but were deleted in the cleanup of Mexico radio and TV templates I've been carrying out in recent months. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 19 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 lexicographers[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. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection between one's religion and one's scholarship. The first three articles are in Category:Arab lexicographers already, that's fine, while article Mahmud al-Kashgari should be added to Category:Lexicographers if this nomination holds. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed--irrelevant to lexicography. Knowing Arabic is a different story but how you worship is not relevant to collecting words. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lexicography has nothing to do with religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Three of the articles are on lexicographers of Arabic. Mahmud al-Kashgari worked on Turkic languages. These are each peoples, many of whom became became Muslim, but religion is not relevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 22 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 scholars[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: purge of articles, keep as container category. I am going to list this for manual processing, as many member pages should be (but are not) categorised elsewhere within category:Scholars, by century, nationality, ethnicity and sub-field. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize (i.e. delete and reinstate category with just the subcategories), the articles are based on a trivial intersection between someone's religion and someone's scholarship, the category contains Muslim chemists, Muslim nuclear experts, Muslim social scientists etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed per above comment and the previous nomination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep just as keep the Christian scholars and other subcats of Category:Religious scholars by religion that no one is putting up for deletion. Otherwise, this looks like targeting of a particular religion. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Christian category does not suffer from the problem described in this nomination. Besides the proposal is not to delete but to containerize, that's quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see a containerized category about scholars of Islam, but scholars who happen to be Muslim is problematic unless someone has reliable sources that say that Muslims do scholarship differently than non-Muslims (and given that many scholars have converted one or the other direction, that those who did changed the rigors or some other substance in their scholarship). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 20 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:Female characters in animation[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 for now without prejudice to including it in a wider nomination (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

delete This category seems unnecesaary; there will always be female characters in any form of fiction. Even if it has been proven that there are more male characters in fiction than females, the category doesn't really seem to be relevant, as every work will contain at least one major female character within it. KlausSmithHeissler (talk) 23:26, 22 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_19&oldid=1136102402"