Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:Factions of the Democratic Party (United States)[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, but purge.
There was no discussion of @Marcocapelle's proposal to rename from "of" to "in". Feel free to open a new discussion on that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I can understand why this was created, we already have Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) which does not seem to relate to this category. I'm also unclear about the criteria. Perhaps a rename with clearer criteria? Why is the DNC in this category? Or Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008? Doug Weller talk 19:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, rename to Category:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 10 February 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.

Years in Japan (1000-1800)[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 before the year 1500. Keep thereafter.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT to decades. The large amount of year categories contain only one article, but there is sufficient content to keep decade categories. Only by the end of 16th century there is a sudden increase in the amount of articles, but not to the extent that merging would make the decade categories excessively large. In the 17th and 18th century the amount of articles drops back to the 'normal' level. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support before 1500. While still on the thin side, the 1540s have almost enough content to keep. The target would end off with at least 30 articles. Later periods need to be considered more fully, hence oppose any action after 1500. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support before 1500 per @Peterkingiron:. We should confine "by year" categories to the Modern Period (i.e. after 1500). Having said that, the definition of "Modern" is quite Euro-centric, so perhaps more latitude ought to be given to Asian categories where it can be demonstrated that sufficient bulk exists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Japan refers to the modern State of Japan, which came into existence in 1947. Prior to that there was no State of Japan in modern meaning.GreyShark (dibra) 13:24, 14 February 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:Colemak 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: speedy delete per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U - narrow. —swpbT go beyond 15:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as creator of the category - I didn't read the rules! Clearly I'm in the wrong -NottNott|talk 16:36, 9 February 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:Twin musicians[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, but there are some pointers here to suggest future nominations for specific parts of this hierarchy. When nominating them, please ensure that all affected sub-categories are also nominated. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also including Category:twin performers, Category:twin actresses, Category:fraternal twin actresses, Category:fraternal twin male actors, Category:twin male actors, Category:fraternal twin actors, Category:twin models, Category:twin sportspeople, Category:twin sportspeople from England
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-notable intersection. TM 01:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. —swpbT go beyond 15:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. I have not formed a view on the triviality or otherwise of the intersections, but if these categories are to be removed, then some upmerger is needed.
e.g. Category:Twin musicians is a subcat of Category:Twin performers and Category:Sibling musical duos. Deletion would remove articles from Category:Twin people and Category:Sibling musical duos.
Similarly, Category:Twin sportspeople from England should be merged to Category:Twin people from England; and Category:Fraternal twin actors should be merged to Category:Fraternal twins. I have not examined the other nominated categories, but they should all be checked.
@TM, do you want to amend the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose upmerging where appropriate.--TM 21:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed scheme per BHG. Grutness...wha? 21:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune some of them. Eg in Category:Twin musicians (subcat of Category:Musical duos), Samanda is a musical duo of twins - twins is surely defining (and is mentioned prominently). In contrast Bill Kaulitz happens to have a twin. In short there is a viable category which should be restricted to articles on Musical duos comprising twins. The others look to me to be dubious, unless the twins are performing together as a duo. But then Camilla and Carey More don't have individual articles and do seem to have generally been together. Category:Twin sportspeople looks as if it should be upmerged (per BHG above). Oculi (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some but prune down to Category:Twin musical duos, with the criterion that they regularly perform together. Sportspeople would only merit keeping if the twins regularly play as a duo, for example as tennis doubles partners. The fact that a person has a twin is trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - so what happens if there are a pair of twins performing as part of a four- or five-piece band, like Kelley and Kim Deal? Not a twin musical duo, but worth keeping in the category, surely... The other option would be to listify, which might solve some problems. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm as big a fan of the Pixies as they come, and even I wouldn't consider twinness to be defining of Kim and Kelley Deal per se. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a new category for the relatively few people who are notable specifically as twins. Happening to be a twin is not defining of the person's notability in most instances — it's only relevant in specialized cases, such as Tegan and Sara, where the twins performed together as a duo. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, both deletion and pruning seem to conflict with User:BrownHairedGirl's initial comment about merging. Probably if these categories are to be deleted or pruned, then the entire tree of Category:Twin people ought to be deleted or pruned, but not the entire tree has been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed or relisted?--TM 11:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Twin Sportspeople - I cant speak for the others, but athletes being twins is frequently cited in the news, often as the basis of articles. As an example, with the Lopez twins in basketball, here are five examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I could do the same for the Barber twins in football - 1, 2, 3. Same would be true of the Paris twins, or the current Martin twins in college basketball or any number of sports twins. It is definitely defining. Rikster2 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are an extreme minority of cases. Sabrina Ionescu also has a twin and it is almost never mentioned. Moreover, simply being a twin is not "the reason(s) for the person's notability;" in the vast majority of cases. For example, Tiki Barber is notable for being a professional athlete, not for being a twin.--TM 11:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the extreme minority. It is the vast majority when both twins play the sport. Paris twins, Burge twins, Wear twins, the Collins twins, etc. - their status as a twin dominates press coverage of tehm. And this is true of Barber too. It is defining for these individuals. Yes, Tiki Barber is known for being a football player. He is also widely known as a football player whose twin brother also played the sport - they've written a whole series of children's books about it post-playing career. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Tiki Barber did not have a twin, he would still be notable. However, if he had never played professional football, he probably would not be notable. Per Wikipedia guidelines, he and all of the others should be categorized for what makes him notable, not by every attribute of his biography.--TM 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:Categorization that indicates there is only one thing notable about a person. If this were the case we wouldn’t have “people from City foo” categories or most college alumni categories. In his case, It is DEFINING that Barber is a twin sportsperson, as evidenced by sources. Rikster2 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually quite a bit in Wikipedia's guidelines on that very topic. Re-read WP:COP#N. It states that "biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability". Some twins are notable for being twins, but the vast majority of people with a twin are notable for something else. It is trivial that they have a twin. Sources regularly talk about a person's siblings and parents, but we do not categorize by that, even when reliable sources state it. Would Category:Sportspeople with three brothers be considered acceptable?--TM 13:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I read all that. What this comes down to is your narrow view of the guideline vs. my view. It is not trivial that a sportsperson has a twin if it consistently is a major point in objective, reliable sources, as it is in all the cases I have highlighted. I.E. it is “defining” it is noted for more athletes than not and pretty much all of them if their twin plays the sport as well. I understand your point. I understand the guideline. I just disagree with you. Rikster2 (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where both notable Where twins are both successful within a given field, it becomes an integral part of how they are defined. Coverage frequently discusses the quality of twinhood (example). I would prune cases where only one of the twins is notable, thus in Category:Twin actors we should have Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen but not Ashton Kutcher. Coverage reflects this distinction: you will struggle to find coverage of Ashley Olsen that fails to mention her twin, yet I only found out that Ashton Kutcher has a twin today, purely for the sake of this conversation SFB 00:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At the very least if the conversation does go towards delete then the contents should be to listify – we definitely have sufficient third party coverage to do that. SFB 00:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort-of related question To be included in Category:Twin people, do both twins have to be notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently.--TM 13:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone relist or close this debate? It seems as though there is a consensus to delete at least some of these categories and prune others.--TM 12:25, 16 April 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_February_9&oldid=871693237"