Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29[edit]

Category:Power microprocessors[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/2019_February_22#Category:Power_microprocessors. ~ Rob13Talk 10:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for microprocessors that implement an ISA called the Power ISA, and describes itself as such, but it's title is missing "ISA", which could lead to it being confused with the earlier POWER ISA. 99Electrons (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - please clarify more. Aren't processors branded as "POWER processors", POWER processors, regardless of the ISA tweaks that might be present (perhaps because of evolving generations)? I don't see the distinction you are making, nor why it is useful to make that distinction, so as it stands, my vote would be to oppose. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category is incorrectly titled. As stated in the category's introductory text, the category is for processors that implement the Power ISA, but the category's title does not reflect this. I don't understand why IBM's POWER processors are relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power Architecture is not a instruction set architecture, but an obsolete marketing term promoted by IBM during the mid- and late-2000s. That there is a Power Architecture article to which Power ISA redirects to is disappointing. Renaming the category as such will only serve to confuse and render Wikipedia more inaccurate. 99Electrons (talk) 22:00, 21 February 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:Lutheran cathedrals 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: merge to Category:Lutheran cathedrals. ~ Rob13Talk 10:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the parent Category:Lutheran cathedrals is nearly empty, it does not require an intermediate layer before reaching the country subcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- this seems like a fine idea to me. In fact, I'd even merge the country categories into this one since it's a few dozen articles at most. Reyk YO! 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we do not need a sub-cat when it is the only sub-cat, and then contains a bunch of sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There is little scope for the target to be expanded, so that we do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This many subcategories just breaks up the articles for navigation and there is not room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:20, 26 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:Highborn adulteresses[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a subjective, crufty new category with no encyclopedic value. — TAnthonyTalk 17:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we already have Category:Mistresses, that should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counter-argument: Mistresses and adulterers are not the same, far from it. Many mistresses were single, adulterers were obviously married. And while being adulterers was a highly punishable crime, being mistress was not. Adulterers were cheating wives, while mistresses were lovers of married men, thus they are almost the opposite. Go-Chlodio (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mary Boleyn and Françoise de Foix were clearly mistresses. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were simultaneously mistresses and adulterers. They aren't mutually excllusive, but tend not not to overlap. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • But they have primarily become known as mistresses. Mistress is a defining characteristic, adulteress isn't really. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This category is not meant to be subjective, but objective. While we can't be certain who was an adulteress and who was simply accused of being one, the description highlights this: Married highborn women who had an affair or were accused of having an affair. Go-Chlodio (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Go-Chlodio: "Highborn" is subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: How? Even the ancient Romans divided their people into the patricians and plebeians. This concept was continued during the medieval period, for the highborn enjoyed many legal privileges while the lowborn did not. Even the clergy was divided by the status of birth. Furthermore, both terms are recognised by Oxford Dictionaries. Go-Chlodio (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go-Chlodio, plenty of subjective things are in dictionaries. Tall, short, fat, thin, hot, cold: all subjective, all in dictionaries.
          How exactly do you define who is highborn, and who isn't? Where exactly is the cutoff? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • BrownHairedGirl, if they were born into a noble family, they are highborn; we do have categories for noble families. Go-Chlodio (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • You might be on stronger ground if this was entitled "noble-born". The concept of nobility has very fuzzy edges, but it does at certain pints in history have some key markers. But "high born" just raises the question "how high"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would argue that noble is more subjective than highborn. As I explained, the highborn were always highborn even if they were tonsured. While the definition of noble varied by country, in England only the peers were considered noble, their children were not. Go-Chlodio (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Go-Chlodio, that just confirms the severity of the definitional problems.
                  In en.wp, categories appear on the bottom of the page as statements of fact, without any qualification or nuance beyond their title. So the titles need to be precise, and the category must do exactly what it says on the tin. Everything you have written here shows that the current title falls well short of that precision, and that alternative formulations are no better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The creator's explanations clarify my initial impression that this is pure cruft.
The title consists of two words. The first "highborn" is irredeemably subjective. The second, "adultresses", is misleading because the creator explicitly states that it includes hose who were merely accused. There is long-standing guidance against categorising people by allegations, at WP:OPINIONCAT, for the simple reason that it's a vehicle for smears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion How about renaming it to "noblewomen charged with adultery"? Go-Chlodio (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective. A category based on nobility might not be so bad, but we don't usually categorize people for being married, having a child out of wedlock etc. See also WP:DNWAUC. Those articles I checked didn't explicitly mention adultery in the lede. DexDor (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is "adulteress" dubious in many of these cases, but "highborn" (not a word commonly used in British English these days) is entirely subjective. Deb (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of who counts as highborn will clearly vary with time and place. It's very hard to see that this will be a useful category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious and subjective. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we are willing to have Category:Highborn adulterers. We have never agreed that violating marriage vows is a defining characteristic of someone. Is this meant to take in the gentry as well as the notability? Does it default exclude all Americans, or are we going to try to work out highborn there to. Are we going to try to apply it to socieities from Hawaii to Tonga, to Madagascar, or just admit a limited scope? This is just a horrible, horrible plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 5 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:Stirling University L.F.C.[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) 11:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Smallcat Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small category with only one article, can't see that category expanded anytime soon. Ben5218 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no need to merge as the one article is well-categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 9 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:Colleges of the University of Aberdeen[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:University of Aberdeen. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The university only has three colleges, never going to be more than a small category Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:19, 29 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:Research organizations by continent[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. ~ Rob13Talk 10:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only two entries. One is Category:Research institutes by continent, which is well populated. Not clear what this category provides. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while there is no objection against the category per se (after all, research organizations is broader than research institutes), the way the category has been populated now does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not a justified level of category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 6 February 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:Research organisations in Spain[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:Research institutes in Spain. ~ Rob13Talk 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two articles, both about research institutes Rathfelder (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now, without objection against recreation if other research organizations than research institutes can be added to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 30 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:Annelids of Europe[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) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are many hundreds of wp articles about annelids (and thousands of species), but this by-location tree of 4 categories contains just 10 articles; even where the articles describe the distribution (e.g. at Glyphidrilus) the article creators have not chosen/bothered to categorize by location.  One of the articles in this structure says it's "widely distributed around the world".  It would be better to not pretend that we are categorizing annelids by location.  Note: There are other forms of life (e.g. bacteria) that we don't categorize by location.
For info: related discussions: Indonesia, country. DexDor (talk) 07:07, 29 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:Lutheran cathedrals in Russia[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: upmerge. ~ Rob13Talk 10:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 29 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:Katie Holmes[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON, WP:SMALLCAT. Low-populated eponymous category with only two roles played and an ex-husband as entries. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why the f* did anyone create this? Is this some attempt at SEO for Katie Holmes fans? A really paranoid android (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now, this category is empty but the category creator has created quite a few similar celebrity categories that might be nominated as well. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 2 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:African birds of prey[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/2019_February_22#Category:African_birds_of_prey. ~ Rob13Talk 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency (e.g. with Category:Birds of Africa and Category:Birds of prey of Sub-Saharan Africa) which imo is more important than avoiding slightly clunky title. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 29 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:Metal Gear (Main Series)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for this. It reflects an opinion that is very debatable, for example many people don't consider Twin Snakes a "main series" game due to the liberties it takes. Also the name is very incorrect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:48, 29 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:Greek Orthodoxy[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: not renamed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: Greek Orthodox Church. See also speedy discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at CFDS
Fair enough. Moved on to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 29. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:33, 29 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_29&oldid=884584094"