Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 2 April 4 >

April 3[edit]

Category:People associated with the Academy of Music in Kraków[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) feminist 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC, needless to create this category with vague inclusion criteria while the contents fits perfectly well in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 3 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:Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in Nigeria[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) 05:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is very unusual (afaics it's the only "Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in ..." category) and is putting talk pages into an article category. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a probable advertisement. —swpbT 12:39, 5 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:Middlesex County College alumni[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) feminist 16:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with one entry for a rather small school. Tinton5 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could not find any other entries to populate it. Tinton5 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with an instructional trout slap) Have you looked at the alumni listed at Middlesex County College? have you scrolled through Special:WhatLinksHere/Middlesex County College to see all the articles for alumni that link to the school? Where exactly did you look that you "could not find any other entries to populate it"? What makes the category "unnecessary"? Do you have a minimum number of entries that would convince you to withdraw the nomination?
    And the million-dollar question, Does this CfD comply with WP:BEFORE? Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do trouts boomerang? You were the creator of the category — it was your job to populate it past WP:SMALLCAT in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate but the question is also why the category is still near-empty, almost a year after creation, while it's so easy to populate? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it was easy to populate. One could also readily find 4 or 5 to populate Category:Middlesex County College faculty. (One should perhaps administer a mild trout-slap to the trout-slapper above, who turns out to be the creator and non-populator of the category in question.) Oculi (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's now been better-populated. Just a reminder to all editors that when you're creating a category, if you already know that there are 10 potential entries for it then it's your job to file all 10 of those entries in the new category right off the top — you can't just file one article in it and leave the other nine for other people to do, because other people won't have any way of knowing that the category exists to have the other nine people filed in it unless they happen to find it by chance. And you doubly don't get to chew other people out for not doing your job for you, either. So no, Tinton's not getting a trout for this...but Alansohn might. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do deserve a little "trout slap", haha, because I did not even look at the 'notable alumni' section, which I should have noticed. It was a careless move on my part. From now on, if we (as in all editors, including myself) create a category, we should take Bearcat's advice and fill it up with entries as best as we can. Also, if we see a category with only 1 or 2 entries, it'd be best to do a thorough WP:Before search. Having said that, I would like to withdraw this nomination. Thank you all for your input. Tinton5 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We normally allow alumni categories for high schools and above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 9 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:Canadian traditional music[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) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this even a recognized classification? The one member doesn't even seem to belong here. Category:Canadian styles of music exists. —swpbT 18:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't inherently invalid in theory — see Category:Traditional music by country, although note that it's not a hugely developed or comprehensive tree, and two of the seven things filed in it aren't even countries — but the only thing that's actually filed here is not a "traditional" Canadian genre, but an imported one. Although there are theoretically a few things that could be filed here (i.e. Category:First Nations music, Category:Inuit music, Category:Newfoundland and Labrador folk songs), there's nothing that really needs it that badly due to not already being adequately categorized. For the record, "traditional" is technically a valid term for classifying music, but it's not a genre per se — it just encompasses a subset of Category:Folk music: mainly ethnic and regional styles, and really old songs that have outlived any known documentation of who actually wrote them. But it's quite unclear that it would need to exist as a separate tree from Category:Canadian folk music. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The implication of the last comment would be populate and parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were needed, maybe that might have been the implication of my comment. But the actual implication if my comment is that it's not needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 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:Relations of those involved in the Irish revolutionary period[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) 05:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC (what level of relation counts?) and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT (what counts as "involved"?) —swpbT 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relation would be biological or legal. Involved would be fighting or helping by spying, buying/transporting weapons or raising funds.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the name of the category that suggests such a demarcation, and even at that, the necessary level of consanguinity or legal relationship is undefined. —swpbT 12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Just because they're related to people who were involved means nothing. Anyway seems like a useless category, why would someone want to search things by this. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:DNWAUC etc. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This seems to be about politicians who are related to the heroes of the Irish War of Liberation. The question has to be whether such a relations category is a sufficiently well-defined set to make a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 9 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:Victory Day[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:Victory days. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named and unlikely to become populated. —swpbT 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Victory Day appears to be a thing celebrated in most of the former Soviet countries, not just in Kazakhstan alone, so there actually are potential contents for this — the head article at Victory Day (9 May) lists a good many things that could potentially be filed here, including standalone articles for many (although not all) of the individual Victory Day parades in Moscow (although not generally anywhere else, and even the Astana one here is of at best questionable standalone notability). But nominator is correct that this category is badly named; the dab page at Victory Day reveals that there are other completely unrelated public commemorations that are also called Victory Day, so if kept this would need to be renamed to a disambiguated title — and there's certainly an open question as to whether we would need a transnational catch-all category for all of the Soviet May 9 Victory Days in all of the former Soviet bloc. But it might be worth repurposing as a category specifically for the Russian version, which appears to be the only one that actually has much spinoff content beyond the main overview article. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. It would definitely be worthwhile to create a new category that is dedicated to 9 May celebrations in Moscow. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 15 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:Serbian period in the history of the Republic of Macedonia[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. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the previous discussion (closed as no consensus) we were actually very close to a consensus to rename, since "create a new category and remove the old one" as commented in that discussion may well be interpreted as renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was part of Yugoslavia, but there is nothing against creating a subcategory for a historical region. It makes sense to do especially since we meanwhile know that an independent republic grew out of it and it may be important to understand its roots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia. Also, @Tonimicho and Zoupan: pinging participants of previous discussion again. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- Macedonia was a province of Yugoslavia, so that this name change is appropriate in principle. The question of whether there is really enough content that is specifically about Macedonia (implying merger) is a separate one, and should be allowed to hold up the rename. Personally I am dubious whether there is enough content, so that I am neutralon the question of merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 9 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 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, although there is some debate about the possible existence of a Silesian ethnicity, we can in any case not verify for individual persons living in Silesia whether they would belong to that ethnicity or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Down with the tyranny of demonyns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'll acknowledge that there are some people who now identify themselves as being of Silesian nationality, but nominator is correct that the extent to which it constitutes a distinct ethnicity is debated at best. For starters, Silesia was historically populated by both ethnic Slavs and ethnic Germans — and this category includes people from both groups, which itself proves that this is being used as a "from the geographic region" category rather than a "possessing this ethnic identity" category. IOW, there's not a strong basis here for needing both an ethnic-demonym category and a people-from-region category; "People from Silesia" is all we need. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 5 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:Ralph Patt[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) 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 3 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:Luftwaffe Luftflotten[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) 09:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article: German Air Fleets in World War II & per WP:ENGLISH.
K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 3 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:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the right venue for this is, but using daily categories is really overkill for the low volume of files that end up here nowadays. We already have Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status for files where the uploader admits he/she doesn't know the copyright status, {{No license needing editor assistance}} can just point there. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:14, 3 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_3&oldid=1138410539"