Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 6 October 8 >

October 7[edit]

Category:CSR Corporation Limited[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 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The captioned defunct group has already merged since 2015. Wrightbus (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 20#Category:CSR Corporation Limited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In theory the category could be kept as a former company category, but there is too little content that exclusively refers to CSR until 2015. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 14 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:China CNR Corporation‎[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 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The captioned defunct group has already merged since 2015. Wrightbus (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 20#Category:China CNR Corporation‎.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In theory the category could be kept as a former company category, but there is too little content that exclusively refers to China CNR until 2015. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 14 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:Companies founded by Jennifer Lopez[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Companies by founder and these are presently categorized as "works" which is not accurate. Upmerging to the parent would not make it unnavigable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 17#Category:Companies founded by Jennifer Lopez.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and also Category:Works by Jennifer Lopez. I would normally have suggested that as target, but (despite the present parent) companies are not works, and I am not sure that applies to perfumes either. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated, so not to works. As commented, companies don't count as (intellectual) works. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 14 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:Woodland period of North America[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:Woodland period. ℯxplicit 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parallelism with other North American archaeological categories, including Category:Archaic period in North America, Category:Post-Archaic period in North America, Category:Southwest periods in North America by Pecos classification, and Category:Formative period in the Americas. I'm unaware of any other North American archaeological categories that use "of", aside from Category:Late Prehistoric period of North America. When one category has a name format that's different from most of the others, people are likely to use the wrong format; see [1], [2], and [3], in each of which I incorrectly added "Woodland period in North America" to articles. Of course, it's fine if we have solid reasoning, e.g. because the topic commonly has a name that's different from the names of similar topics, but that's not the case here; "of/in North America" is merely descriptive, since the scholars in the field, who write only in a North American context and therefore don't need to specify the geo-context, simply use "Woodland period", "Archaic period", etc.
Since the article's title is Woodland period, I'd be all right with a rename to Category:Woodland period if there's no need for a location at all, but please note that the article's intro begins "In the classification of Archaeological cultures of North America, the Woodland period of North American pre-Columbian cultures...", which makes me think that there's a chance of ambiguity in the name, and please remember that categories sometimes need to have names more precise than those of their articles. [Note that both Woodland period in North America and Woodland period of North America are nonexistent.] No comment on whether that's the case here; I just wanted to raise that as an alternate option. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 7 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.

History by location and period[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard format, matching parents Category:History by country, Category:History by continent and Category:History by city. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; I think the current name is better, but as I say up above in the Woodland period nomination, having different name formats is confusing an dunhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 14 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:Post-mortem[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This duplicates the Forensic pathology‎ category, as well as other subcats of Category:Forensics. I'm not sure what "Post-mortem" is even supposed to mean in terms of describing a category of articles.  Sandstein  14:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; "Category:Adjective" is almost always a bad idea (even if it doesn't duplicate anything), since almost always it won't have a clear scope. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Strictly the present category is about an Examination Post Mortem. In England, this is required for unexplained deaths. The coroner can also certify a death in a case where an inquest might be required "without inquest", where the cause is obvious and natural. I suspect the practice arose from holding inquests to discover if there was a deodand, a chattel that caused death and was forfeit to the crown. There was also an Inquisition post mortem (until 1640) to determine whether the deceased held land of the crown in chief, so that the crown might be entitled to a wardship or a relief. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 8 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:17th-century Jewish physicians of the Ottoman Empire[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, these are four categories that contain one and the same biography, of Tobias Cohn. Note that this article is already directly included in most of the parents of the categories that are nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this is another case of category twigs, not trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 8 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:Medieval Ottoman astronomers[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in this category, and a very narrow intersection. No need to upmerge to the other two parent categories, the article is already in Category:Medieval Jewish astronomers and Category:15th-century people of the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 7 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:Performers of Christian music by genre[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as an unnecessary category layer, taking in mind the very limited amount of content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is an unnecessary layer. They will fit well in the parent. If we had 10 genres, I might have said different. The target already has a few genres in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 8 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:Fictional anti-tank weapons[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, none of the articles in this category are defined by their anti tank abilities. There are fictional vehicles that happen to have that capability, and energy rays that could be used for that. Compare and contrast to the articles in Category:Anti-tank weapons, all of which are specifically made to destroy tanks. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added Wikiproject templates to the talk page of the category. That might increase participation in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 7 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:Honduran female weightlifters[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: already deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete until articles are created that can populate this. Currently there are none. I did a PetScan for the subset of Category:Honduran people, Category:Women and Category:Weightlifters with a depth of 10 subcategories, and all I got was this category itself. No prejudice against recreation with population.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As it's empty. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete We have had an enormous number of these empty categories due to the mass-creation and subsequent deletion of unsourced BLP stubs on athletes. I and other editors have been trying to clean up the mess left behind. Unfortunately there are a still remaining within the category trees. AusLondonder (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G8 speedy deleted; a category's dependent on the articles placed into it, and deleting the articles (Tumy Gomez is the only one I can find) means that the category's dependent on deleted or nonexistent pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my own interest, I was going to attempt to re-populate this with anyone who'd been at the Olympics, but Honduras has only sent two men in weightlifting to date. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:12, 8 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:Recipients of the Order of Excellence (Jamaica)[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) 06:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders visit Jamaica, or vice versa, the Order of Excellence (Jamaica) is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Recipients like President Mbeki of South Africa and King Carlos I of Spain just don't seem defined by this award. If you want to see the clutter this type of category creates at the article level, take a look the train wreck at the bottom of this article. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified Alifazal as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Jamaica. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These diplomatic awards are a category menace. We have OCAWARD to prevent the category clutter that AWARDS like these cause. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as too small, but not for any reasons of the nominator. Was leaning “Keep per Wp:CLS and a parent article”, dismissing the “not defining” arguments. A very important award. One recipient being over-awarded leading into to one article’s category clutter demands a different solution, not pruning of categories with navigational functionality. However, there are too few awardees. I recommend re-creation after there are ten or more awardees. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't fit the text of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth aka SMALLCAT, as there is potential for growth. Flexible reading is required. This is a rarely used award, with little likelihood of growth. And if there were to be unexpected growth, it would very likely be associated with a change in the use of the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 10 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:Recipients of Gawad Mabini[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 16#Category:Recipients of Gawad Mabini. ℯxplicit 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a diplomat or high ranking official for the Philippines is absolutely defining which is why we have Category:Filipino diplomats and similar categories. Also categorizing those same people by this this career award for that service seems redundant. Of the 14 biography articles in this category, 10 don't mention the award at all, 3 only in passing (1, 2, 3) and one in the introduction (1). Should any reader want this information, there is a template here and I already listified the contents here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to Tambayan Philippines. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These awards (here effectively long service awards) are a category menace. We have OCAWARD to prevent the category clutter that AWARDS like these cause. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be awarded for merit and not to just be an award for long service. If anyone can provide any evidence that it is not awarded for merit then please do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be awarded for careers successfully organizing conferences, setting up a job program in a foreign embassy, economic negotiations and the like so not automatic but nothing outside the normal duties of an ambassador.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. If it's not awarded to every ambassador or just for length of service then it's awarded for merit. Just like the OBE or Légion d'honneur. And we categorise such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just providing background information about the award. (We continue to respectfully disagree about whether all awards for "merit" automatically warrant a category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 12 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_7&oldid=1074282217"