Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members[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) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is odd as it is temporary. "Proposed" cabinet members will either be confirmed or not, and will then become cabinet members or rejected or withdrawn nominees. Soon enough, this category will be completely empty when every cabinet role is filled. And the category will be of even less use after Trump leaves office. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Will only be relevant for a very short time, not suitable for an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. JDDJS (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - those who become cabinet members will be categorized as such, and those who don't will be forgotten in this context, even if they are otherwise notable for other reasons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably these folks were notable for something other than being nominated and not serving. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We categorize on permanent characteristics which once they become true will always remain true in perpetuity, not on transient and temporary classifications that a person will have to be removed from again within a matter of days or weeks. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 22 February 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.

Futsal clubs[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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Nominator's rationale: Should have same naming conventions as Category:Association football clubs by country Ben Stone 19:52, 15 February 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:British Library-related 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. Her Pegship (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per stub category naming conventions. Her Pegship (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we don't use the "-related" form for stub catagories. As to the stub tag, the current name represents a subtype of {{Library-stub}}, which it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 20 February 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_good_articles[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. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are few reasons.. 1. This category is a duplication of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GA and list of these articles can be easily retrieved there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:GA 2. More importantly people often get confused and think that this page is actually a list of good articles. You can verify it by browsing through langlinks in sidebar. The actual Good Articles category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Good_articles) has only 12 of langlinks, and most of them are actually equivalents of "Good Articles in English" that obviously isn't available in English Wikipedia. Removing this category would encourage to link Good Articles categories in other languages to proper category, and release langlinks from this category Adam Stankiewicz (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is nonsense. Categories are for tracking articles and there is no list at the template page (although it does link to this category). I don't even understand what the last three sentences mean. Laurdecl talk 09:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nom makes no sense. JDDJS (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's hard to make sense of the nomination, but per WP:CLS, a category and a navbox can co-exist. And in any case, this is a maintenance category, not intended for navigation by readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Good articles. It's a bit difficult to make sense of the nomination, but why do we have a "good articles" category separate from "wikipedia good articles", when both are just a collection of GA-class articles? That's what I'm having trouble making sense of. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because (1) the Good Article reviewing history, including the {{GA}} template that records the event of passing GA status, lives on the talk page, and (2) Category:Wikipedia good articles is a tracking category added by the GA template. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CfD is probably too narrow for consensus to fundamentally change this long-established system. This tracks talk pages. Separate category tracks main pages. Both have their maintenance uses. Category tracking is not redundant to templates and we have both very often. Having a template doesn't remove the need for it. This would need a much broader RfC, the CfD is not even reported to any projects except people who watch the category. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concurring with User:Ivanvector, wondering about the purpose of collecting all these talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While the nomination is unclear so initially it is uncertain why this discussion has been called, on looking into it I can see we have two categories for the same articles. Category:Wikipedia_good_articles was created first, and is the main maintenance category containing the various Good Article topic categories. This cat links to the articles via their talkpages. Category:Good articles was created in 2010 as a tracking category, and links to the articles directly. The cats count differently, as Category:Good articles holds 25,776 pages, while Category:Wikipedia good articles holds 25,795 pages. I think it is appropriate to look into these two categories, and merge them into one, keeping the functionality of both, so we have one category that holds, tracks and counts our Good Articles. I would suggest that links from whichever category is chosen as the merge target should go to the articles rather than their talkpages. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is probably something like one is populated by the GA topicon while the other is populated by "class=GA" in the WikiProject banners. The discrepancy would be articles or talk pages missing one or the other. Another good reason to have one category for this and have it populated in a consistent way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mechanism for creating the topicon and putting the articles into the article category is to have a bot notice the changes on the talk page and update the article to match. And there are currently issues with the bot maintainer preventing changes to the bot (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations). Have you even checked whether your proposed change will avoid breaking that bot? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really could have made that comment without the hostility. Seeing how I wasn't aware of the process until you explained it, no, I did not check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with keeping after seeing explanations that a merge is not practical. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:Hellknow - Christian75 (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One collects talk pages, the other collects articles. The category which collects talk pages (nominated here) subdivides them into categories based on topic, something which would require substantial effort involving a bot run to duplicate in the other category because the categorization is only present on the talk page. No reason to merge and a lot of work to carry out a merge makes this an easy decision for me. ~ Rob13Talk 17:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per the rationale brought to light by Ivanvector. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid maintenance/tracking category, should not be merged to an article-space category. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment - as I think Od Mishehu and David Eppstein were trying but not doing a very good job of explaining, Category:Wikipedia good articles is part of a project-facing maintenance and categorization system for content classification; others are Category:B-Class articles, Category:Stubs, and so on; the vast majority of casual readers will never see them. Meanwhile, Category:Good articles is a reader-facing category meant to showcase articles in the GA class, which is a good thing to do. Both categories serve different users and purposes and both ought to be kept. But given that explanation, isn't Category:Wikipedia good articles redundant to Category:GA-Class articles? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia good articles is what you get from the GA template (recording the fact that the article passed GA review); GA-class articles is what you get from the project rating banners. They should be the same most of the time, but it might be useful to check when they're not. Also, I think that projects have project-specific definitions of A-class, so an article could be A-class according to one project banner and still also separately be a Wikipedia good article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is setting up for a separate discussion I'm sure, but I see what you mean: an article rated A-class might also have passed a GA review, so it would not be a member of the related GA-class category, thus it would need to be a part of one of the "Wikipedia good articles" subcategories for tracking. Any solution I can think of at the moment isn't better than what we have now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a useful and not fully duplicative category, which lets out merging; BU Rob13's explanation makes a number of very good points. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Why fix what isn't broken? Carbrera (talk) 22:23, 16 March 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:Zaporizhian Sich[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. Note: it currently contains 3 articles and a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there will be more. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:06, 15 February 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 associated with Kiev Pechersk Lavra[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 parents as a soft deletion. That means that the category may be re-created if it appears useful, although it could then be subject to a fresh nomination. Right now it only contains the new category for monks, so I will place that one into the two parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. The one article is about a monk of Kiev Pechersk Lavra, but I'm not sure if there is sufficient potential to create a Category:Monks of Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the category is created for the purpose of associating people with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and the city of Kiev. Upmerging will not solve anything. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't create categories with vague inclusion criteria. Association is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 15 February 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_February_15&oldid=1084319230"