Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Category:Las Vegas entertainers[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. Cerebellum (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Performer by location of performance. Although the text of the category supposedly limits this category, it isn't used that way and furthermore, without specific inclusion criteria it's purely subjective. Categories are supposed to be for defining characteristics of articles (especially for BLPs). For example, in the category, we find Patty Duke, with nary a mention of Las Vegas in her extensive biography; we also find Sandy Duncan, ditto; and while Gloria Estefan, certainly goes there to receive awards, her performances in Las Vegas aren't worthy of mention in her biography either. Moreover, we don't have categories for Category:Branson, Missouri performers, although there's an unsourced list at Branson, Missouri, or Reno, or the Meadowlands, or the Fillmore, the SuperDome, the Nippon Budokan, <pick your favorite entertainment venue>. If performing in Las Vegas is notable - as opposed to being a singer, commedian, magician - a sourced list would do fine, but it certainly isn't defining for nearly all the folks categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to a list It's not any old location, being a Vegas performer historically is noteworthy. It was a way to tie them all together. The category does explicitly state that it is not for anybody whoever made one appearance there but regularly performed/performs and is closely associated with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:Overcategorization#Performers_by_series_or_performance_venue. There is a long-standing consensus against categorising performers in this way, and that consensus has been stable for ten years. As the nominator notes, attempts to restrict the scope more closely than implied by the category title have failed ... as they always do with such categories, because most categorisation is done via WP:HOTCAT which doesn't display any such notes. Categories will in practise be used as the title implies, and this one is no exception.
    This is a job for a list, which can set out a clear scope and inclusion criteria, provide a source for each entry, and add some details of their role in Vegas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having performed to a paying audience in a specific town is hardly 'a shared characteristic' Probably the only thing BB King and Frank Sinatra have in common and still not a shared characteristic. There may be reasons to have an article about the development and some of the performers at LV, but even a list seems more about self-contribution to the WP than value-added information. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if there are performers who made a big part of their career out of being regular house performers at Las Vegas venues -- not sure, but maybe -- the text of the category, which supposedly limits this category to those performers, isn't used that way, and it's being used inappropriately to categorize performers who just occasionally appeared in Las Vegas. Which is not helpful IMO, and there's no way to prevent this, so let's just delete it. Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. @Dr. Blofeld: You might want to create Category:Entertainers from Nevada for permanent residents of Nevada. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 2 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:Eastern Christianity in the Middle East[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) feminist 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, they don't add anything to Category:Eastern Christianity by country, Category:Eastern Orthodoxy by country. It would have been a different issue if there would have been articles about the topic, like there are in parent Category:Christianity in the Middle East. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 12 January 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:Washington (state) State Senators[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. The nominator's push for consistency among category naming conventions is admirable, but this category is very likely to be confused for state senators vs. federal senators, so the qualifier is necessary. If the nominator believes this result presents an inconsistency, they are free to nominate the categories they deem are inconsistent for a rename. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also from the Department of Redundancy Department. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per convention in Category:Washington (state), following Washington (state). Oculi (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:C2D facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name. Even if it occasionally causes redundant names, Washington (state) should be used consistently. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As redundant as the name may seem, it is within the realm of possibility for a non-American (or even an American who isn't knowledgeable about the political system) to erroneously believe that Washington DC has a bicameral government just like the states and most of the territories do, and thus perceive the proposed name as referring to members of a purported Washington DC Senate. As well, as noted by the above commenters it is important for the Washington State categories to be consistent with each other — if we're starting at "Washington (state)" for the eponym, then it has to stay "Washington (state)" through all related categories regardless of perceived redundancies or lack of naming conflicts with DC categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid ambiguity, per Bearcat's most fine explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The target would cover those both in the State Senate (which is I assume what this is about) and the state's senators in US senate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is ridiculous. It's Category:Members of the Washington House of Representatives, not Category:Members of the Washington (state) House of Representatives. There is no consistency here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 18 January 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 who died on an airplane or at the airport[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. VegaDark (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category per its "explanation" —ATS 🖖 talk 20:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not nonsense. While major airports such as Frankfurt or Dubai get deaths very often if not every day and smaller major airports like Jakarta or Toronto get deaths quite often and smaller airports also the odd time get a death of a passenger, same thing with airlines, almost none of these deaths are notable people. This category lists those few notable people who have died at the airport or on a commercial flight and those who fell ill/injured on an airplane or at the airport but died later in hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is complete nonsense. You've invented a "category" that specifically does not include some people who should be listed and does include people who should not. Your insistence that it be included on Carrie Fisher is proof of the non sequitur. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unworkable. The definition is baggy and the scope imprecise. Having a category for people who died on a flight might have some merit (but in my view it would have to exclude people who died just while sat on a grounded plane), but why do people need to know who died at an airport? What next, people who died in a bank, people who died in a bus station, people who died on a zebra crossing? And would it include someone who died while hailing a cab just outside an airport? Or someone who got food poisoning on a flight, went home, had complications and became weakened over several weeks, and died months later? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have categories of victims of aircraft incidents, which is defining. But where someone may die of stroke, old age, etc. is not: otherwise, we'd have categories for people who died in the bedroom, in hotels, in the bathroom, at dinner, at the theatre, and the various others articulated above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The cause of death is a legitimate basis for a category — the location of death is not. What's defining about Carrie Fisher's death is that she had a heart attack, not where she physically happened to be when her heart stopped. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial (WP:OC#TRIVIAL) and non-defining (WP:NONDEF) per Bearcat, and too vague in scope. As @PaleCloudedWhite notes, what is "at the airport"? Major airports are sprawling complexes, without clear boundaries. That leaves a category such as this either subjective (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) or given arbitrary inclusion criteria (WP:ARBITRARYCAT). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unworkable. UK death certificates may record death as "at sea". I am not sure what the practice is for deaths on aircraft. The actress who died recently perhaps did so because urgent medical treatment was not available until the plane landed. Deaths in an airport would certainly not be worth categorising. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining trait for the individuals involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 16 January 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:Songs by Indian artist[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 since the comment in this discussion is not advocating keeping both categories side-by-side. A reorganization of the tree of Category:Songs by country can be discussed in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "songs by artist nationality" category scheme has not been established like it has for albums (I assume partially because of the different nature of something one writes or performs vs. something one records). All of the current subcategories are already in Category:Indian songs so an upmerge is not necessary and that category doesn't seem to need a subdivision such as this anyway. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only." What makes a song an "indian song?" Is it by the songwriter's nationality (which may be several songwriters from all around the world), place of recording or subsequent recording, language used for lyrics, where it has been a success or by the nationality of the person recording the song? If a hit in America is written by an Englishman and Scotsman, but recorded by a Jamaican? It is my opinion, that Category:Songs by nationality is a misnomer and the nominated category would have more practical use and easier to define. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 21 January 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:State constitutional officers of Washington (state)[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. The nominator's push for consistency among category naming conventions is admirable, but this category is very likely to be confused for state representatives vs. federal representatives, so the qualifier is necessary. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Department of Redundancy Department. We don't need the word "state" in here twice. Washington D.C. is not a state. That category is Category:Constitutional officers of the District of Columbia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we rename the others, I recommend keeping Category:Secretaries of State of Washington (state) as-is. "Secretary of State" isn't just a state thing, as U.S. territories have them as well (not to mention the U.S. itself having one). In addition, "Secretaries of State of Washington" might be misconstrued to mean "People who have served as Secretary of State under George Washington". Cthomas3 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:C2D facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name. Even if it occasionally causes redundant names, Washington (state) should be used consistently. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's true that Washington DC doesn't have Secretaries of State, it's not inherently obvious that it doesn't have the same government structure as a state or a territory — I do know of people who do erroneously believe that DC is a state or territory, and such a person would be likely to believe that DC would thus have a bicameral legislature and a Secretary of State and a treasurer. And a category's level of disambiguation has to stay consistent throughout the entire tree of related categories — if the base eponym has to be at "Washington (state)", then the subcategories have to stay at "Washington (state)" regardless of any perceived redundancies and regardless of the lack of conflict with a DC category. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While theoretically ambiguity is not possible, we should stick to the convention of retaining "(state)" for Georgia and Washington. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 15 January 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_January_12&oldid=1138410788"