Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6[edit]

Category:The 99[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) 03:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category collects all articles concerning The 99 so that a reader interested in the topic easily can find the other articles for further reading. --Bensin (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Categ contains only 3 articles, which can be easily interlinked without needing a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 7 July 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:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled[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. ℯxplicit 06:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems very counterintuitive to categorize transclusions of templates that have categories turned off. I don't see what purpose this has besides adding clutter. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2/ It allows editors to track where categories have been inappropriately disabled. This is a Good Thing, so congrats to whoever created it.
Finally, this categ is clearly signposted as being used by WP:FILM. So why did Train2104 not ask the project whether it's needed, or at the very least notify them of this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FILM notified[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a maintenance template category for WP Films. It is meant for project Banners, I don't see where it can add clutter... Thanks for notifying us, BrownHairedGirl. Hoverfish Talk 00:19, 15 July 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:Burr–Hamilton duel[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) 03:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, unnecessary; already includes tangential wl to Aaron Burr (advertisement), and mostly duplicates wikilinks that are readily available (with context) in body of article Burr-Hamilton duel Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is appropriate to have an article on the duel, but we do not need a category to cover a minor incident in history. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree with User:Peterkingiron that a Wikipedia article on the subject is appropriate, but a category on the subject would be non-defining especially considering that the biography articles on the two principal participants, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton have not been included in this category.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:37, 12 July 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:Health, education, and welfare[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a hodgepodge of different topics lumped together. The category clearly shows that JEL uses different criteria for categorization than Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note the former existence of the US government's Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Whether or not that's relevant to this discussion is for others to decide; I just wanted it to be available for deciding. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: an obsolete hodgepodge, throwback to the 1970s government department that brought these three things together by administrative caprice. Delete per nom. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:13, 9 July 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:Agricultural and natural resource economics[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. Silence = consent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the scope of this category completely overlaps with its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 6 July 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:First Peoples National Party of Canada politicians[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. Silence = consent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for a defunct political party, with no further prospect of growth beyond its leader. This was a good faith creation at the time, as Wikipedia was formerly more flexible about this kind of thing -- it used to be that the possibility of eventual expansion was enough to justify this, but the party disbanded in 2013 and our standards have tightened up to now require a more immediate prospect of expansion that can't be met. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 6 July 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:Fictional beauticians[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, i.e. not renamed. Consensus to keep the current title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: more inclusive; main article covers specialists such as "Esthetician", "Beautician", etc. All these names redirect to article. --Omanyd (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the ongoing effort to close the "wage gap" for women, I've learned that most got cheated by virtue of a lower wage "job title" that performed the equivalent work of a "higher wage" one. That got me thinking and so I am curious. What is consensus of various Category:Fictional characters by occupation categories with distinct job titles; yet they technically synonymous and/or perform the same job function? (i.e. garbage-boy, janitor, custodian, etc.)
  • Support To make the category more inclusive. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, do we really need this kind of categories? I can imagine that we have categories for fictional law enforcement agents, fictional slaves, fictional pirates, i.e. for any occupation that really defines the fiction. But beautician seems just too trivial and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we have a parent Category:Beauticians but none for cosmetologists. What's good enough for real people is good enough for fictional characters. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic but I would support a rename of both Category:Beauticians and Category:Fictional beauticians to 'Cosmetologists' or similar. (Beautician redirects to Cosmetology.) Oculi (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london, and since "beautician" is a normal English term for this concept, let's not rename real or fictional beauticians to cosmetologists; aside from the chance that some people might confuse them with cosmologists, the term tends toward job title inflation. I checked eight members of this category, and seven of them appeared to be soap-opera characters (including three from EastEnders); for such characters, probably created because beauty shops are a natural place to share community gossip, the category really is defining. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A cosmetologist should be someone who studies "cosmet". I know what cosmetics are, but "cosmet" is not an English word. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 9 July 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_July_6&oldid=1074283170"