Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Anthozoa 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the anthozoa-by-country categories have been deleted (e.g. by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 21). It's generally better to categorize fauna (especially marine fauna) by regions rather than by countries. DexDor (talk) 21:43, 3 January 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:Dead South Korean 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There should not be general categories like that without any criterias (like musicians which were murdered etc.), all musicians will be dead at some point. We dont have "Category:Dead American musicians", "Dead Basketball players" etc. either. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should not be deleted. Yes, everyone will eventually die, but it's not like everyone will die in 5 seconds. Music in Korea has been a thing for several decades, centuries maybe, and this list alone only has 7 notable people listed, and no one on that list has died of a natural cause. Even then, a list of "Korean Musicians who committed suicide" wouldn't pass because there's "Suicide in South Korea" (no one even THOUGHT of adding a list there.) and Sungjae is the only one on the list who was murdered (his case hasn't even had confirmation in the last 20 years.) I believe the list should be kept. Besides, it's easier than "Suicide in Korea" in general, as mixing so many entertainers, politicians, and musicians can be time consuming for readers. This category would be easier because they can find the entertainers they are looking for. And I feel the only person who'd really look up murdered musicians or suicide would be either a pedophile, a serial killer, an activist, a very depressed person, or a terrorist. Believe me, this is general, but because occurrence of notable stars is rare, efficient.-K-popguardian (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: So what if I was? What's that got to do with the deletion of this category?-K-popguardian (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests that you don't fully understand Wikipedia processes, to start with - cutting and pasting an entire article removes authorship information, which goes against Wikipedia's policies. It also suggests that you have already had problems with basically the same list, albeit in a different form, as the list was deleted after a PROD as being unencyclopaedic. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't follow any of the points made by K-popguardian. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03:The major problem (several editors brought this up to me) was that I also used non-notable stars such as Ahn Sojin and Go EunB, which mainly contributed to the points everyone here has brought up. This time, I based it on notability, and by doing so, I only found 9 deceased, adding to my point that yes, people die every day, but it's not like everyone in Korea will drop dead in the next 3 secs.-K-popguardian (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.-K-popguardian (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K, somehow, I created a draft instead of an article by accident, so if anyone wants to get rid of that please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Dead_South_Korean_Musicians

I know what you're all thinking. No, I didn't intentionally do this. I just wanted to re-create the draft in case somehow the page would work out, so I followed the link of the original draft, but somehow it became a page. My apologies-K-popguardian (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. We generally assume good faith here :) I've deleted it for you. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification & Proposal::@Snowflake91: :@Alexanderlee: :@Grutness: :@Johnpacklambert: :@LaundryPizza03: :@Dr.K.: Okay, so I feel like I never even made clear at all what my goal was with this, which I feel like I should've brought up a few months ago.

My point in making this article was not to list dead musicians as a whole (I realized what you all meant.) I meant to only list musicians who were still active in their career such as Kwon Ri-se, (who was still in Ladies' Code at the time of her death,) or [[Kim Jong-hyun (singer)|Kim Jong-hyun (no explanation needed.) My proposition is to re-create this article again, possibly under "List of Dead South Korean Musicians Active in Music" or something shorter than that. Of course, that means I'm leaving out certain people like Cho Deok-hwan (who retired 3 years before his death,) and Choi Jin-young (who ended his music career 5 years before death to pursue an acting career.)

I feel like it's better this way because like I said, there are only so few Korean musicians in each category, and as you all said, "everyone will eventually die." This works out because not every musician usually dies while they are active. (as you can tell from there only being 8 listed, not counting Jinyoung.)

Does that sound like a better idea?-K-popguardian (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apart from a couple of very specific manners of death (i.e. murder or suicide), there's no encyclopedic value in categories which intersect occupation and nationality with deadness. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowflake91: :@Alexanderlee: :@Grutness: :@Johnpacklambert: :@LaundryPizza03: :@Dr. K.::@Bearcat:Ok, since no one replied, I just did it. List of South Korean musicians who died while active has been created. Is this the better option? Or at least an improvement?-K-popguardian (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An active musician would be someone who is still at the height of their music career, or were still producing albums (ex: Jonghyun or RiSe) when they died. If the musician has not made a release for almost 3 years, or declares that they are ending their music career (for acting or whatever reason,) would not be considered an active musician because they have not produced any music in several years, (yes, I know I have Jihoon on there, I plan to remove him.) It's not a common occurence, as shown evident from the gaps in years.-K-popguardian (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be problematical - some musicians release albums years after it seems like they've stopped - or even announce they've stopped. John Lennon died shortly after finishing his first album for seven years. He was clearly an "active musician", but if he'd been killed six months earlier, he wouldn't have been. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 10 January 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 Christianity (1000 to 1500)[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/delete as nominated. While there wasn't much discussion, the proposal and outcome is consistent with other recent discussions that have formed a consensus to largely eliminate these lightly populated intersections of topics by year. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article, or only contain a Churches completed subcat. Note that most categories don't need a second merge target (XXth century in Christianity) because they are already in XXth-century synods, or XXth-century papal bulls, or alike. The bottom half of the nominated categories don't need a first merge target either (YYYY in religion) because the articles in them are already in religious buildings established in YYYY - hence these categories can simply be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although since these upmerges will still leave say Category:1048 in religion a one entry category, I wonder if we need to look at cutting back on the unjustified category by year proliferation even more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 13 January 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:Michael Dean Shelton[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only one article about Michael Dean Shelton, and one image of him. Article is a near orphan (1 article link in), so I don't think that there is potential for growth Icarusgeek (talk) 17:54, 3 January 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:Removal companies of the United Kingdom[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. While not fully discussed, I'll create a category redirect as an editorial action. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make it persistent with Category:Moving companies. Störm (talk) 16:23, 3 January 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:Italian football club season templates[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: moot. Cat was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_2#Template:1979–80_in_Serie_A. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please seeWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 2#Template:1979–80 in Serie A, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Withdrew per below, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on procedural grounds, no rationale given. GiantSnowman 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the category is usefull for keeping all the templates together. If the category is deleted, then the templates will be added to a vaguer category which will make them harder to find. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:24, 4 January 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:Companies of the United States disestablished in 2000[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT outside existing scheme. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:E16B:CF5B:FB75:EDF0 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 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:WikiProject Masculinism[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. The nominator @SMcCandlish's stated intent is to delete this along with its subcats. However the subcats were not been tagged or listed, so procedurally this should have been closed as "no action". However, all the subcats were unused apart from the template category containing the project banner, so I WP:G6 speedy-deleted the lot, leaving only this Category:WikiProject Masculinism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete along with its subcats and banner template. Projects merged some time ago; WP:WikiProject Masculinism redirects to WP:WikiProject Men's Issues. There's nothing in this category to merge, as it's all been superseded by the stuff of the newer project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:38, 3 January 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.
@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you. I'm glad my faith was well placed that the WP:BUREAUCRACY level here has decreased a bit and that I wouldn't be forced to spend 20 minutes pointlessly tagging the empty subcats and opening a TfD guaranteed to close with the same result. Kind of a test case of sorts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Thanks. But sadly, one person's admin-who-doesn't-behave-like-a-pedantic-bureaucrat is another person's rogue admin ... so I rarely step outside the box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just need your {{User rouge admin}} template and you're all good.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that and the asbestos underwear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with antisocial personality disorder[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 as WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pure original research Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have Category:People with antisocial personality disorder for real people; it may violate WP:BLP if unsourced. No opinion here or the similar category below. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm certain there are rules on here that if name a televised canonical episode of the show where the fictional character shows their antisocial personalities (though with most of them, you can use a whole season) that counts as citation there for not original research.--TBBC (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t seem to be how this is being used, rather, one (now blocked) user has been deciding for themselves, without using sources, and edit warring to include this and other similar categories for some time now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An episode needs to show an explicit diagnosis or at the very least some in episode statement by another character of that that character has a psychological disorder, not a viewers opinion of a non-trained professional (a.k.a. WP:OR) that shown behavior meets that criteria and classify the article that way based on an editors opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also Category:Fictional characters with antisocial personality disorders as basically the same thing and nominated category was created by one editor recategorizing from the plural category to the singular. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this category has been blanked since it has been nominated for deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well some of those listed (well formerly listed) actually have had just that.--TBBC (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the articles I checked and for which I removed the category indicated a psychological disorder of any sort being claimed. A personality trait is not necessarily a disorder, it is just a personality trait and nothing more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:32, 7 January 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:Fictional characters with narcissistic personality disorder[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 as WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pure original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder, the corresponding category for real people. That, of course, may violate WP:BLP if unsourced. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm certain there are rules on here that if name a televised canonical episode of the show where the fictional character shows their arrogant personalities (though with most of them, you can use a whole season) that counts as citation there for not original research.--TBBC (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An episode needs to show an explicit diagnosis or at the very least some in episode statement by another character of that that character has a psychological disorder, not a viewers opinion of a non-trained professional (a.k.a. WP:OR) that shown behavior meets that criteria and classify the article that way based on an editors opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this category has been blanked since it has been nominated for deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well some of those listed (well formerly listed) actually have had just that.--TBBC (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the articles I checked and for which I removed the category indicated a psychological disorder of any sort being claimed. A personality trait is not necessarily a disorder, it is just a personality trait and nothing more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:32, 7 January 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_January_3&oldid=871692707"