Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Category:Paulo Coelho[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 October 29#Category:Paulo Coelho. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category: three articles and one subcat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 20 October 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.

Medieval and early modern elections by year[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 November 16#Medieval and early modern elections by year. ℯxplicit 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more election categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories only have one or two articles. Note that the 18th-century categories don't require a second merge target since all articles are in an 18th-century by continent subcategory already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in part -- No problem with the early cases, but after (say) 1500, I would prefer to see us merging to decades, not centuries, at least initially. There is more to populate these with. For example England had two general elections in 1640, which does not appear in the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as nominated to XXth century elections and XXXX in politics, and consider splits by decade later. With regard to Peterkingiron's comment above, Category:16th-century elections has 27 member articles in total and Category:17th-century elections has 31 member articles in total, which on average is 2.7 and 3.1 articles per decade, respectively. I don't think that's quite sufficient to warrant implementing a decade-level scheme. @Marcocapelle: In your nomination, why do you not propose merging categories for 1701 and later to Category:18th-century elections? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:30, 12 November 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:New Amarambalam Reserved Forest[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: procedural close. This is about an article, not about a category. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Amarambalam Resered Forest is now New amarambalam wildlife sanctuary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jishad.A.K (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The forest was recently upgraded to a Wildlife Sanctuary.Jishad.A.K (talk) 14:10, 20 October 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:Colombo Sports 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 to Category:Sports clubs in Colombo. ℯxplicit 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-controversial naming change per WP:MOS to correct case of the latter initial letters. Jack | talk page 10:30, 20 October 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:Films based on financial crisis[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 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Financial crises aren't works that films can be based upon; the already existing parent category Films about financial crises is more appropriate. Trivialist (talk) 09:58, 20 October 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 healthcare managers[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, without prejudice to renomination of the wider (and recently expanded) category scheme. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to the more specific occupation of the people in this category, and move the category to Category:Chief executives in the healthcare industry. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two very distinct categories. Not all managers, by any means, are chief executives. Chief executives should be a sub category of managers. Rathfelder (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but the two articles in here are about chief executives. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure I will find more articles about managers who are not chief executives. Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Managers who are not chief executives are not notable for being managers, so they're not defined by the fact and there would be no basis for categorizing the non-CEO managers as such. Even as people who are or were both health care executives, neither of the people filed here now even have articles because health care executive, per se — they both have articles for passing WP:NPOL #1 as elected provincial or federal legislators, and neither one of them would ever have gotten an article at all if their work in health care management were their sole notability claim. But a mere non-executive manager would have even less of a legitimate claim that they were notable for that fact in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It is probably better to keep the wider term and Populate. Furthermore, this should be closed to match the outcome for the healthcare/medical parent (subject of a recent CFD, still open). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate with what? "Healthcare manager" isn't normally a thing a person would get a Wikipedia article for in and of itself, so the only people the category could potentially be populated with are healthcare managers who went on to become notable for other reasons (e.g. getting elected to the legislature and thereby passing WP:NPOL) and thus aren't defined by their work as a healthcare manager. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of doctors are notable for leading hospitals, research centres or medical services of other kinds without being chief executives. Rathfelder (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's become more concrete, which articles did you find that don't fit in any more specific category than the one that is currently nominated? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgian, not Canadian. Director of a research institute, not a healthcare manager. This article clearly does not belong in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think the director of an Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a healthcare manager? Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: I would expect a healthcare manager to be managing healthcare operations, not healthcare research. But then again, what is the definition of a healthcare manager while hardly anyone is directly characterized as a healthcare manager? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most substantial healthcare operations include research. I don't think its a very helpful distinction.Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 10 November 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:Sanjeev Kamboj[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: procedural close. This is about an article, not about a category. (non-admin closure) Oculi (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not notable,not a category. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it was an article, not a category, so I've moved it to Sanjeev Kamboj. It should now be afd'd (if desired). Oculi (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who engender conflict everywhere they go[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) 07:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a user category that does not facilitate collaboration. Categories are not an extension of userspace, and they are not merely bottom-of-the-page notices, and we all as users can express our random thoughts and opinions without creating a category grouping for each one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indeed there are some who could self identify as such - however delete per nom - not needed JarrahTree 04:16, 25 October 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:Wikipedians who took the liberty to stay[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) 07:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate collaboration. Very unclear as to what the category is even categorizing. VegaDark (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JarrahTree 07:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. Categories are not an extension of userspace, and they are not merely bottom-of-the-page notices, and we all as users can express our random thoughts without creating a category grouping for each one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:36, 20 October 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:Wikipedians who get all POV on others, 'cause it's funny[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) 07:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so obvious nothing to to with collaboration JarrahTree 07:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. Categories are not an extension of userspace, and they are not merely bottom-of-the-page notices, and we all as users can express our random thoughts without creating a category grouping for each one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:36, 20 October 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:Open Source Hardware Wikipedians[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) 07:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is unclear. Is it for users who use open-source hardware, support it, design it, are interested in collaborating on articles related to it, or something else? The first two are inappropriate user categories, whereas the latter two could be useful. However, the fact is we do not know, and the sole member of the category has made only 1 edit since 2014. The category is currently housed in Category:Wikipedians by computer skill, but I think that is probably an error. We ought to delete the category, without prejudice to recreation of a more clearly named category that meets WP:USERCAT. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JarrahTree 07:05, 20 October 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:Wikipedians who support the giant squid[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) 07:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated category group users by advocacy of a position, specifically support for giant squid, and therefore does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There is extensive precedent to delete support/oppose user categories. I would not necessarily be opposed to a category for Wikipedians interested in collaborating about relevant articles (perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in squid), but we should allow users to recategorize themselves if they choose to do so and not presume that they have such an interest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not that some people like giant squid, the problem is people expressing that like by way of a user category, in violation of our guidelines. VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, we should move this page somewhere else.WarriorFISH (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well, I guess you are right. Perhaps the userbox is enough. Happy editing. WarriorFISH (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this userbox a while ago and probably created the category by accident, not with the intention of making it a legit "encyclopedic" category though. I don't really care if it gets deleted, I just wanted the userbox and didn't know how to add it to the userbox gallery. The actual userbox/userbox page can stay even if the category gets deleted right? also thanks for the support WarriorFISH haha 00090R (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @00090R: Absolutely, the userbox will remain untouched in both appearance and function—only the category code would be removed. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I am a member, not because I was interested in violating guidelines (as has been suggested), but because I saw an existing group and joined it for fun (which is why most of us edit WP). I don't care if this gets deleted, but let's keep in mind the fact that the creator and I (the only members) were both acting in good faith and good fun (and I also know the nominator and others are acting in good faith). Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El cid, el campeador: Of course, and I didn't think otherwise. My rationale was basically a very technical way of saying "the userbox is fine but we don't need categories that express support/opposition", even though supporting a species is something I can get behind! Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to my comment above, I do not mean to suggest individual users in a category (or even the creator necessarily) are violating guidelines. I mean to suggest that the category existing is a violation of our guidelines. I would not hold individual users accountable unless they were to re-add the category as a redlink to their page after a consensus has formed for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 05:08, 26 October 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:Users who oppose categorization of users[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) 07:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category group users by advocacy of a position, specifically opposition to user categorization, and therefore does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Ironically, its sole member is a userbox which states, "This user opposes userboxes.", and therefore has nothing to do specifically with user categorization. There is extensive precedent to delete support/oppose user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 20 October 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_October_20&oldid=1074282541"