Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25[edit]

Category:Recipients of the War Merit Cross (Lippe)[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) 05:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for an award for meritorious service. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 25 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:Recipients of the Cross for Merit in War[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) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for an award for meritorious service. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 25 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:Anggun[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Requesting deletion per WP:OCEPON and per precedent in CfD. Typically, eponymous categories for music acts with nothing more than albums and songs subcategories and a discography page have been deleted because the subcategories can be interlinked with a hat note and the discography page can be added to one or both of the subcats. They are warranted when there are enough distinct articles. I believe populating them with non-articles such as image files, audio files, and templates do not add to the navigational benefit of having these categories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consistent with practice in similar cases. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:51, 26 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:Lake Washington Technical College faculty[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) 20:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No potential for growth - is even a single other faculty member from this 2-year college likely to be the subject of an article? —swpbT 17:33, 25 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:Companies listed on the Pink Sheets[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no longer "Pink Sheets" in the US. OTC Markets Group operates several tiers of over-the-counter trading: OTC Pink is one, but there are also OTCQX and OTCQB. I recently created the target category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge for now, per nom, but at the same time I wonder if the target should exist at all, per WP:OCMISC, as the target category mostly means that companies in the category are not traded on any stock exchange. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 2 June 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:Company spin-offs[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency: the subject article is Corporate spin-off, and standard WP naming of these types of categories uses "Corporate" (the adjective) more than "Company" (the noun). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:17, 25 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.

Professional wrestlers by generation[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary intersection, and unpopulated. —swpbT 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unpopulated anymore but this would appear to be for patriarchs of Category:Professional wrestling families. Delete per nom. Someone wants to create a list, that's a matter for elsewhere, but I can't see us further splitting Category:Professional wrestling families along the line of otherwise unrelated wrestling elders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDITED On second thoughts, I think I will strike my previous comments on this. It's convenient in a way but I'm unsure.★Trekker (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this really for professional wrestlers whose families have never produced any previous professional wrestlers? I took it as referring to professional wrestlers from the first generation of the "sport" (comparable to First generation Dodge Stratus or First generation computer scientists), regardless of their relatives' occupations. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wrestlers are often categorized or mentioned as "X generation wrestler" because of the overwhelming number of family relations in professional wrestling. Pro wrestling is a very nepotistic and secretive business so it's ended up this way. The artform doesn't really have generations like the ones you mentioned.★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Swpb and Shawn in Montreal: Why do we allow second and third generation categories but should we delete first generation wrestlers? Or should the second and third generation categories be deleted as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say second and third make a little more sense since they have pretty specific criteria for inclusion. It makes more sense to define a person by what their parents are as opposed to what their children have done afterwards. It's kind of like with military brats, yes it may sometimes seem inconsequential but if you look a little deeper you see that it more often than not it ends up defining a wrestlers career and life in some way.★Trekker (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend and Marcocapelle: given the answers to your questions, do you wish to offer a view on what should be done? – Fayenatic London 18:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Handle like the other generations. If the criteria for second- and third-generations are simple, the criteria for first- are equally simple. If Dad were a butcher, but Grandpa helped to pioneer the "sport", whether you qualify as second-generation will also explain whether you're first-generation. I don't quite see the point of any of these categories, but I understand that there might be good reason for them. However, deleting one and keeping the other two seems like a bad idea: delete them all or keep them all. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Nyttend: if to be deleted, delete them all together. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding sibling categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:31, 25 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.

Historic farms[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 19#Historic farms. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger of "Centennial farms" and/or "Century farms" into generic "Historic farms". Thanks for notice about this. There's no difference intended between "Centennial" ones vs. "Century" ones; I have a small bias towards choosing to use "Century". Setting up a category redirect or merging "Centennial" into "Century" is fine. Also, Century farms can naturally be a subcategory of Historic farms. However, the term "Century farm" is a designation like a historic site listing which is specific, is recognized by various state agencies, involves documentation that one family owned and operated the farm for 100 years (where "in the same family" and "operating the farm" have to be defined well enough, which may vary slightly by state). This is like the difference between generic historic houses vs. houses which are specifically listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' Historic-Cultural Monuments or the like. See the Century Farm article which lists the state recognizing bodies. It is temporarily a small category because previous members were lost in the past (perhaps one or both categories were deleted in the past). ["Category:Century farms" was previously deleted by this CFD in 2011, in which !voting participants were ignorant even about what a century farm is. Perhaps Century Farm article was developed more then or after.] There is room for an explicit list of them, but Categories and Lists are complementary (per wp:CLT), and it makes sense to allow the category so that members for a list can be identified. --doncram 04:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. wp:SMALLCAT applies to categories with little or no potential for growth. Check out this 23 page list of new Century Farms designated in Iowa in 2016, for just one state's listings, found in 2 seconds of Google searching. I am not expecting that each one of these needs a Wikipedia article. But where they are notable and have articles, putting into a category to group them together is helpful. --doncram 04:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.P.S. There were only a couple members when the categories were nominated. Now it includes:
  1. Boyd–Wilson Farm
  2. Brabson's Ferry Plantation
  3. Corbett Farm
  4. Davies Manor
  5. Spencer Eakin Farm
  6. Earnest Farms Historic District
  7. Fairvue (Jefferson City, Tennessee)
  8. Augustus Fanno Farmhouse
  9. Farrar Distillery
  10. Harms Farm
  11. Maden Hall Farm
  12. Maymead Farm
  13. McPhail Angus Farm
  14. Oak Hill Farm
  15. Shamrock Acres
  16. Smithson–McCall Farm
  17. Taylor-Stevenson Ranch
and perhaps more.
Also Jacob Nuffer Farmstead in Minnesota (currently a redlink) is a NRHP-listed one which will get an article and the category sometime, as will many others. Of 2,000+ NRHP entries with "Farm" in their name, it's not easy to see which are designated century farms, but a good number are.--
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:Pre-Islamic heritage by country[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains a single child category, and no room for expansion since we normally name a category "Ancient history of" instead of "Pre-islamic". Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_25&oldid=1138411244"