Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4[edit]

Category:Monika Kørra[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) 22:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing only the eponymous topic. —swpbT go beyond 22:41, 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:Pedals[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Scope unclear; only one member. —swpbT go beyond 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now 7 members about different types of foot-operated devices. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable delete Whilst I can accept that there might be a need for a category 'about' pedals, these articles are all about equipment which happen to use/include a pedal. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pedal is a key element in these 7 devices. I would agree with your point if these were items which happen to have a pedal, among all sorts of controls. But you can't take away the foot pedals from a pedal keyboard or pedal harp. This new proposed category helps readers to find different items which have pedals playing a prominent role, and in the case of the pedal keyboard and pedal harp, a role so important to the item that the word "pedal" is in title.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first article is for Bicycle pedal which incorporates a rotational linkage, and bears no relation to the mechanisms for pianos, harps etc. I agree that the pedals in those pieces of equipment are important but all they share is the name pedal which is why I am questioning the use of the category. I might go along with a Category:Pedal musical instruments or something. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems entirely reasonable to me, not any different from Category:Wheels, Category:Screws, Category:Gears. Someone may well be interested in what sorts of modern things this simple-machine approach has been applied to, like pedal-based computer pointing devices, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering there are three articles in it which are actually about pedals. The other things I would say are Category:Pedal operated devices... Sionk (talk) 18:40, 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.

Category:Birds of São Tomé and Príncipe[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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, common moorhen or fallow deer are found on these islands is non-defining for those species.  Example of previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 25. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mammals; aside from humans, bats, and stowaways (e.g. rats), there's not much mammal communication between São Tomé e Príncipe and the mainland, so their presence there is significant, even if they're not endemic. Merge the birds per the reasons given at the previous CFD. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only species in the mammals category (apart from those in the endemic subcategory) is fallow deer and being found on these islands is very non-defining for that species. DexDor (talk) 22:21, 9 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:American labor leaders[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, without prejudice to starting a wider discussion of Category:Trade union leaders. While there are compelling reasons to retain this category (it is part of Category:Trade union leaders, it is a useful container for subcats, there is a significant distinction between union leaders and rank-and-file, etc.), the question about the definition of "leader" in this context is a fair one and remains open (User:Sionk offered a definition but no one else has commented on it). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category represents an unnecessary distinction between labor leaders and rank and file members that does exist for any other nationality. Notable individual leadership positions should be subcategorized. TM 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT go beyond 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Nomination is factually false. See Category:Trade union leaders for similar categories for other countries. There is a difference between union rank and file and leaders as anyone knowledgeable of the subject would know. Hmains (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a portion of my rationale, thank you for pointing that out. However, no one is notable for simply being a member of a trade union. What is a trade union leader, anyway? Is anyone who is in any leadership position considered a leader? The distinction is unclear and unhelpful.--TM 03:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not sure we need two categories but then I would rather keep the leaders category, because probably plain membership is not a defining characteristic. In any case it would require a fresh nomination for the global categories, we can't make changes like this for Americans only. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis there are plenty of labo(u)r activists and organizers who do not choose to become labo(u)r leaders (though admittedly they're more likely to become well known if they get elected to leadership positions). Sionk (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 8 subcats, so the categ would be useful even if it was only a container for them. Maybe there is scope for more subcats, but some leader may be the only notable leaders of small or short-lived unions, so subcats may not be appropriate ... but its still useful to separate leaders from rank and file. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are 466 articles at the top level of Category:American labor leaders. The nom needs to explain how it is useful to combine these 466 with the 180 or so at the top level of Category:American labor unionists. Oculi (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no real distinction between a labor unionist and a labor leader, nor is there a top level article for labor leader. Virtually everyone who is notable for their work in labor unions is a leader of one sort or another. Category:Trade unionists by nationality is far more populated than the corresponding labor leaders category. There is no reason for repeating categories in which there is virtually no distinction.--TM 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is being a member of a labor union defining except for labor leaders? I, for example, have been a member of a union, not out of any desire, but because I was forced to join when I worked at two different grocery stores. If union membership is forced as a condition of employment, it seems non-defining. It seems to me being a "leader" is the defining thing. Not that leader is a fairly broad term. It could probably be stretched to include my fellow teacher who was on the union committee at an elementary school. Although she was not the head of the union there, she lead out in making waves about the school administration not paying. Being a "leader" means you lead people, it basically can encompass anyone from an assistant shop steward up, so anyone whose union membership is in any way defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like quite a broad definition of leader and surely not the intention of Category:American labor leaders. It really depends on whether the person is known for their rank-and-file activism or for being an elected regional or national official (i.e. leader). I agree it would be poihtless in categorising people here who happen to have joined a union at some point, but are notable for something completely different. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 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:Fictional characters who can manipulate time and space[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: closed in conjunction with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 15#Category:Video game characters who can manipulate time and space.
Taken together, these discussions have two editors with policy-based reasons for deletion, and nobody offering policy-based reasons to keep. We have one editor supporting merger of the video game subcat and one opponent of that merge. However, the issue of merger is moot if fictional characters are not to be categorised by this attribute ... so the result is delete both Category:Video game characters who can manipulate time and space and Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate time and space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary and vague category. The notice reads "Must be a defining trait - Characters with access to vast powers (i.e. magical spells, advanced technology, genetic engineering, etc.) who are theoretically capable of this superhuman feature or ability - but whom have neither made regular use, nor provided a notable example, of this extraordinary or supernatural feat - are not listed here." Being "theoretically capable" sounds like if they "can". What is "regular use"? What's the cut-off?

The category explanation says: "fictional characters who can create, shape and manipulate time and space; this includes physics distortion, reality warping, and time manipulation, or any related ability to control the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels". So it's again about characters who not only "theoretically" (I love it that it's about fictional characters that theoretically can do something) have time and space altering powers, but have done so in the works that they've appeared in. Also, time and space; do these characters all have the powers to manipulate both? Do we need two subcategories? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:27, 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:Muttahida Qaumi Movement MPs[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. – Fayenatic London 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this is a subcat of Category:Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan, normally abbreviated as "MNA", e.g. in Category:MNAs of the National Assembly of Pakistan by term and its subcats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muttahida Qaumi Movement MPs can accommodate bios related to MQM MNA's, Senators as well MPAs (Member of the provincial assembly) while Cat:Muttahida Qaumi Movement MNAs can only accommodate MNA's belonging to MQM which is not very large in size. --Saqib (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: we already have Category:Muttahida Qaumi Movement politicians as a catch-all categ. We don't need another one.
This one is a subcat of Category:Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan, so it is set up to be for MNAs only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just checked Category:Muttahida Qaumi Movement MPs. All but one of the 24 articles in the category are MNAs (the exception is Sohail Mashadi). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: OK. Go ahead and rename it or delete it because I found that we don't have such categories for other Pakistani political parties so why for this. I recall I created it for some maintenance purpose. --Saqib (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we already have categories for MNAs by term wise such as Category:Pakistani MNAs 2013–18. --Saqib (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_4&oldid=871692628"