Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20[edit]

Category:Luftwaffe pilots[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category: German World War II pilots as the Luftwaffe was the German Air Force of WWII. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the Luftwaffe began in 1933 and was involved in the Spanish civil war. If there is to be a merge I would prefer a reverse merge as the article is Luftwaffe and the parent category is Category:Luftwaffe. Oculi (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – while there is a significant overlap in the two categories, not all Luftwaffe pilots served during WWII and not all German pilots in WWII were Luftwaffe personnel, e.g. Hanna Reitsch, Melitta Schenk von Stauffenberg, or Beate Uhse. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Luftwaffe was in service from 15 May, 1933 to 20 August, 1946. It preceded World War II and briefly survived the war. By the way, I am not certain whether to count Hanna Reitsch among the Luftwaffe pilots. While never officially enlisted in the ranks, she served as a test pilot for the Luftwaffe from 1937 to 1942. Her article mentions hospitalization in 1942, following a crash landing, but does not specify when and if she returned to active duty. She served as a test pilot for a different project in 1944, but it is unclear (from the article) whether that Project was developed by the Luftwaffe. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 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.

Category:Republican Party (United States) websites[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 but I will implement this as Category:American conservative websites, as "political" does not seem to be necessary, cf Category:American conservative magazines. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category with the scope "websites that publish material from the perspective of a political party", which is difficult to define. The current category name suggests that the websites are owned by the Republican Party or has links to it, which cannot be proven for many websites in this category. Either expand the scope of this category to American conservative websites in general, or upmerge to its parent category. feminist 10:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • I've added project banners on the category's talk page, this may generate more discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 6 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:People from Newfield, New Jersey[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 11:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 2 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:22, 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:Marking the third millennium[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:Turn of the third millennium. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Word choice issue, usually nouns are used in such cases. But open to other suggestions. Brandmeistertalk 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed close to SHAREDNAME, but not close enough to delete. Category:2000 millennium seems a bit unclear, maybe then Category:Millennium marks established in 2000? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: is your concern that the category is about 2000 as opposed to 2001? Or did you have some other definition of "third millennium" in mind? In the latter case, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In the former case, I don't believe it is or should be about 2000 to the exclusion of 2001; it could equally include events, buildings, etc specifically tied to 2001 as opposed to 2000. (I am aware that Cuba held its millennium celebration in 2001, but not sure it merits a Wikipedia article.) I think both 2000 millennium and Millennium marks are odd phrases likely to puzzle a reader. 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Commemorations of the third millennium. Worth noting that User:jnestorius's complaint that "celebration" suggests transience is undermined by the very category they use to illustrate permanence, Category:Buildings and structures celebrating the third millennium – clearly, a "celebration" can be lasting. —swpbT 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First let me offer an alternative non-celebration: Category:Millennium Development Goals is not so much celebrating the turn of the millennium as lamenting how much remains to be done. Second, I stand over my claim that "celebration" suggests transience, while admitting that the suggestion may be overridden given enough context. Something may be misleading without being incorrect. I don't think "Celebrations of the third millennium" provides enough context to avoid the misleading impression of transience; "Buildings celebrating..." might provide enough context, although if you want to propose renaming to "Category:Buildings and structures marking the third millennium" I will support you. Commemoration has the opposite problem to celebration, in that a party held on 1 Jan 2000 is not a commemoration. Marking is vague enough to encompass everything and conforms to the MOS despite Brandmeister's initial claim to the contrary. People are looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. jnestorius(talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Four people concur it's not a "nonexistent problem". No one but you considers "marking" acceptable. So instead of digging your heels in, think of a better name, like the rest of us are trying to do. —swpbT 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody but Brandmeister has offered any reason why they consider "marking" unaceptable; I've already addressed Brandmeister's argument and nobody has responded. I've already said I'm open to alternatives, and remain so. I have explained why each of those offered is in my opinion inferior to the current name. jnestorius(talk) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many different proposals are offered now. Let's try to agree on some principles first. One more general principle is that a noun as the center part of a category name is preferable over a verb (replacing "marking" by "marks" or anything alike). That's relatively easy. A second principle more specifically for this case is that the category should (or should not?) reflect that it is about the turn of the millennium in 2000/2001. The latter is more difficult to describe in a concise way. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've explained, gerunds like "marking" are considered nouns, not verbs, by the MOS. There are featured articles named Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Sinking of the RMS Titanic, Welding, Burning of Parliament, etc. If Marking of the third millennium sounds more noun-y to people than Marking the third millennium, that would be fine by me. jnestorius(talk) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, this stretches the MOS's acceptance of verbs as gerunds past the breaking point; but more importantly, no one but you finds this acceptable. You don't have to like it, you don't have to buy anyone's arguments, but you have to acknowledge that the numbers are completely against you. Whatever the solution ends up being, there's thorough consensus that it won't be "marking", and this continued bringing it up is a waste of our time. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, your best bet for getting a name you're ok with is to accept that reality. —swpbT 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between saying the current name might be improved and saying it must be changed at all costs. I interpret Brandmeister and Peterkingiron's comments as the former, in which case only two out of five commenters find the current name unacceptable. See also Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. If you can find a plain vanilla noun that means "marking" that's great, but "mark" is too ambiguous to work. The closest in meaning I could think of is "cognizance"; here are some synonyms. jnestorius(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • We can purge this category of everything unrelated to "commemoration" or "celebrations", such as 2000 millennium attack plots or Questioning the Millennium. After that, the category could be safely renamed either to Celebrations or Commemoration(s), I think. Brandmeistertalk 18:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you think the scope of the category is inappropriate and needs to be narrowed independent of whatever the name might be? Or are you suggesting changing the scope to bypass the problem of finding a suitable name? The latter would be a bad reason to change. I also disagree with the former; can you be more explicit about what would be removed from the scope? If a change of scope is really desired I would suggest broadening rather than narrowing. If it were renamed Turn of the third millennium it could include all the present plus Year 2000 problem and perhaps others. jnestorius(talk) 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm thinking of narrower scope for the suggested new titles. In that sense, one can celebrate the millenium both before and after its advent. Similarly, it's possible to commemorate it both before and after the advent. For example, an artwork made in advance before the millenium to commemorate or celebrate it. The main article appears to be Millennium celebrations. For broader issues we have Category:3rd millennium, where things like Year 2000 problem or Questioning the Millennium could go. 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Turn of the third millennium, thus broadening the scope slightly, sounds fine to me. I don't see a need for further diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could accept that, looks like a special case among other millenia. Brandmeistertalk 19:05, 3 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:May Coup (Poland)[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the eponymous article and a subcat. The article is displayed as the main article in the header of the subcat so all of it is completely interlinked already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw this nomination, meanwhile the latter suggestion makes more sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 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:100 players who shook the Kop[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 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A fan poll of 'favourite players' does not merit its own category. GiantSnowman 07:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably wouldn't stand as a list article, let alone a category. Non-defining. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a list article, but an AfD discussion led to it being merged / redirected to list of Liverpool F.C. players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lists such as this are compiled every few months. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable enough. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a category where inclusion depends on POV or OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The category should still be deleted, but I don't think this is true. I mean, yes, it depends on the POV and "research" of the fans who put the list together, but they having done so, we can objectively say "these players were named to the '100 who shook the Kop'". --BDD (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was my creation, didn't really know that a category had to be so notable compared with a template and agree it doesn't meet criteria (although more widely publicised than most of these polls). Nominator informs me a template to be placed on the players concerned would be acceptable and I have prepared the text for that (unless anyone has any objections?) so category can go ASAP. Crowsus (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable inclusion criterion. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 4 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:Budd Dwyer[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 delete, so rename. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content to justify an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but purge. Per WP:SMALLCAT, there's an exception for "holders of a notable political office". Three articles, except the main one, are directly related to him, which is acceptable for a standalone category. Brandmeistertalk 16:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a misunderstanding, the WP:SMALLCAT exception is for political offices categories that are populated with biographies (assuming there is ample room for growth), not for categories about a single person. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 28 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:Templates for speedy deletion[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 move sub-category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Make name of category match with purpose - this category is added to pages by {{db-t2}} only, not {{db-t3}} or any general CSD criteria being used on templates. Pppery 02:40, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_20&oldid=1075704879"