Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17[edit]

Category:Jordan Peele[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. As always, a film director does not automatically get one of these the moment he has a "Works by..." category to file in it -- the basis for needing one of these would be that he had a lot of supplementary spinoff content that needed Peele-related categorization besides the standard category schemes that already exist. But literally everything relevant to Jordan Peele is already crosslinked by the {{Jordan Peele}} navbox, so there's no navigational need for this yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2018 (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:Patriot Prayer[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a group without the volume of spinoff content to need it. The contents here are the head article, one article about an organizer, one article about a rally and three redirects to the head article -- but the redirects aren't relevant to whether this needs a dedicated category or not, so this leaves us with just two relevant entries besides the eponym itself, which isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there should be a category; there are too few articles to populate it. On a semi-relevant note, Proud Boys might need a category. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 17 December 2018 (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:Rugby clubs in Connecticut[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is a bit of a misfire. "Rugby league" and "rugby union" are actually two different things, so we don't have any comprehensive scheme of mixing and matching them together into a common "rugby clubs" tree -- and while rugby league teams in the United States aren't subcatted by state yet, Category:Rugby union teams in Connecticut already exists. So this is just an unnecessary duplicate category on the rugby union side -- and while a new category could potentially be created for the rugby league teams, they shouldn't be paired together in a common category as rugby "clubs" as there's no parent tree for that. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (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:William Wardell[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content to warrant one. Although this person was an architect, the example of how we categorize musicians and writers is a relevant comparison: regardless of their creative domain, a person does not automatically get one of these to parent their "works by [person]" category the moment one of those exists -- a category at this level only becomes appropriate or necessary if there's a large volume of spinoff content beyond the standard schemes, which needs person-related categorization but doesn't fit into the standard categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2018 (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:21st-century American singers[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is too wide ranging, with thousands of people already listed. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, but not for the reasons that is being proposed. I think the category definition is unclear. What does it mean to be a singer of the 21st century? Do you have to be born in the 21st century to qualify, or be active in the 21st century? If the latter, how does one define the start (end) of activity - is it when they first (last) performed publicly, or when they first (last) published a work? What if their last work was created in 1999, but only got released (due to publishing delays) in 2000? Does a band member who provides back up vocals qualify as a singer (even though they are primarily an instrument player)? Does a stage performer who sings for a theater performance, but not otherwise, qualify as a singer? And then there are pedantic questions like when did the 21st century begin (lay people think of this as Jan 1, 2000, but historians know that the century began on Jan 1, 2001)? Until there is clarity around what exactly this category means, I don't think it should exist. A really paranoid android (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I actually agree in principle that categorizing people by century of activity isn't a great idea, it's been comprehensively happening on a very, very wide scale for a few years now. Category:21st-century singers also exists, for starters, and has parallel categories for 63 other countries besides the United States, as well as directly containing 107 other articles that aren't subcatted by nationality yet — and Category:21st-century American musicians also exists, with parallel categories for eight other kinds of musicians besides singers and directly containing 493 other articles that haven't been subcategorized yet either. And both of those roll up to a comprehensive, heavily populated and heavily subcategorized Category:21st-century musicians tree too. Sure, the category size is an issue, but it's not an issue that's unique to this category — as long as the rest of the "21st-century musicians" scheme still exists, every article here could simply be readded to any other part of that tree, thus simply exporting its size to other categories rather than quelling it. So the entire concept of categorizing people by century at all could certainly do with a bit of reconsideration — but picking this category off in isolation, while leaving the overall "21st-century musicians" scheme otherwise intact, isn't an acceptable solution. Unless you're willing to shoot for a consensus to kill off the entire concept of categorizing people by century at all, by comprehensively batch-nominating the entire forest of "XX-century anything", there's no valid reason to treat this one as uniquely inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category is part of a well-established category tree. And all "21-century x" categories are about period of activity, not necessarilly the entire lifespan. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedural Oppose part of category chain of Category:American singers by century. We cannot just delete one part of that chain. Either we delete the whole chain or we keep the whole chain. Either way, a wider nomination and discussion will be required. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's fairly clear in a wide range of X-century Fooish whatevers, that the Fooish person had to whatever during the X century. If I'm wrong, then the same ambiguity argument can be made to every by century category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's extremely large, but one of the few situations where there's no way to avoid that. The categorization criteria seems fairly clear; yes there could be edge cases (a singer whose last performance was in March 2000 probably shouldn't be listed) but those can be handled on article talk pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:32, 18 December 2018 (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:Special education in England and Category:Special education in Scotland[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: special education in England includes only one article. Special education in Scotland has two articles. One of the articles in both categories is Special Education in the United Kingdom. Although education is devolved to some extent in the UK, there are still few differences between England and Scotland's special education provision. Therefore, it seems pointless for these categories to exist.CircleGirl (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (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:Christianity in Pakistan by city[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 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, as a redundant container category. There is now only a subcategory Lahore, even if Karachi would also have its own subcategory they would still easily fit in the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2018 (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:Makossa[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 04:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Upmerge as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:04, 17 December 2018 (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 have been given a Pelican book[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Populated by a userbox stating "This editor has been given a Pelican Book through Wikimedia UK and The Wikipedia Library." It is not helpful in any way to group user by this commonality, as users with this in common cannot be expected to have the ability or inclination to collaborate on any particular subject. VegaDark (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh. I recently agreed to a deletion for a Category just as bad (ok - possibly worse): Wikipedian's who drink Dr. Pepper. Are these the equivalent of Wikipedia graffiti? A really paranoid android (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like an ad to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this to manage a gift of reference books to Wikipedia editors whilst I was part of the UK chapter. I am no longer involved in that program or the chapter, but if I was I would think it useful to be able to find a group of Wikipedians who were interested in being given access to reference materiel. ϢereSpielChequers 09:17, 23 December 2018 (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:Wikipedian professional journalists[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Wikipedian journalists, a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession. I see no distinction, for collaborative purposes on Wikipedia, to sub-categorize "professional" journalists. As a subcategory of Wikipedians by profession already, it is assumed those in the merge target are already professional journalists. There is no reason to keep these as two different categories insofar as the opportunity to collaborate for the benefit of the encyclopedia is concerned (I'd argue categorizing users by their profession isn't particularly useful in general, but that's a discussion saved for another, more inclusive nomination). VegaDark (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This category contains only two users and a template, so even if it wasn't an unnecessary duplicate it would be removable per WP:SMALLCAT. Reyk YO! 08:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the nominator's rationale. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. For Wikipedia collaboration purposes, there's no relevant distinction between professional journalists and freelancers at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2018 (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 in Mount Juliet, Tennessee[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the past, we have deleted "Wikipedians by location" categories for locations with less than 50,000 people (with suggestions of making the threshold even higher) due to the difficulty for collaborative efforts amongst editors covering such a narrow scope; see here, here, and here for examples. The city in question claims a population of 33,263. The category's lone user is already in Category:Wikipedians in Nashville, Tennessee and Category:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee which are better oriented to achieve collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2018 (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 from Bakersfield, California[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 to Category:Wikipedians in Bakersfield, California and Category:Wikipedians in California respectively, as the best match in each case. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as categories that cannot facilitate collaboration. It does not benefit the project in any way to categorize users based on the city that they originate from. VegaDark (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true at all. There are numerous cases where we have deleted categories associated with a userbox and not deleted the userbox. The user category guideline is far stricter than our guidelines on userboxes. Particularly in this case where the userboxes are in userspace; there's absolutely no grounds to delete the userboxes in question here in my view. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians from California. We do not diffuse this state category any further, we do not even have Category:Wikipedians from Los Angeles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can agree to that as a temporary solution, but it serves no encyclopedic purpose in the least to categorize users by where they are "from". I was unaware of that category and will be nominating that next. VegaDark (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, some degree of categorizing users bylocation can facilitate collaboration. If there were, for instance, a factual dispute about California that I as a Canadian didn't know how to answer, looking for users who live in California might very well be one of my strategies for finding somebody who knows how to resolve it. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what Category:Wikipedians in California is for. Categorizing where users are from is irrelevant. Some people are "from" places that they haven't been since they were a child, and even if we could infer any additional willingness or ability for users from a particular location to collaborate on a particular group of articles (which I think would be a huge stretch), we run into WP:NOR issues where users should absolutely not draw from their own personal experiences when collaborating on content but rather what they have the ability to find reliable sources to draw from related to that content. VegaDark (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that Wikipedians from and Wikipedians in California should be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2019 (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 have been awarded the Michigan Barnstar[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot facilitate collaboration. "Award" categories such as these have an extensive history of deletion. Ultimately, while it is certainly acceptable to display and celebrate an award on one's userpage, it does not benefit the encyclopedia to group users in a category based on what awards they happen to have won. Anybody can create their own barnstar for any particular topic and award them at will, so grouping users by award seems additionally useless for that reason. VegaDark (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per extensive precedent. These categories do not facilitate collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 18 December 2018 (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/2018_December_17&oldid=877519122"