Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5[edit]

Category:Weekendavisen[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/2018 July 22#Category:Weekendavisen. ℯxplicit 00:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a newspaper without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. All that's here is the eponym itself and one journalist associated with it, which makes this an unnecessary WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The category definitely needs to be populated but there is plenty of potential content. Many editors-in-chief, critics, journalists etc need English articles and one of the largest Danish literary prizes is for example also awarded by the newspaper.Ramblersen (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep categories like this based on how many potential future articles might be theoretically possible to create — every single newspaper that exists at all could always claim that an eponymous category was theoretically expandable if that were a valid exemption from OCEPON in and of itself, so every newspaper would have to have an eponymous category. We keep or delete categories based on how many articles already exist, and then permit recreation in the future if that number changes. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Danish category Kategori:Journalister ved Weekendavisen ("Category: Weekendavisen journalists) contains 62 articles. I have added the ones with English articles to the category Category:Weekendavisen people and it now contains nine articles.Ramblersen (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that Category:Weekendavisen has been nominated (with 2 articles), not Category:Weekendavisen people (with 9 articles). The former category can be deleted while keeping the latter category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created CategoryWeekendavisen people after the nomination took place. Isn't it more normal to keep the more general category and then create more specific ones once the need is there? And is it really normal to delete categories that comply with general rules for creation of categories (that are similar to other existing categories) and contain two articles and a subcategory with nine articles (that is 11 articles had the subcategory had not been created)? If so, I can see a lot of categories (both newspaper ones and others) that should also be nominated for deletion, I know that is not in itself an argument for keeping the category but I am just trying to understand why this specific category should be deleted since it is neither particularly empty (anymore) or unlikely to grow in content in the future.Ramblersen (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's questioned the validity of the "people" subcategory at all. But even with Category:Weekendavisen people in place, every "[Newspaper] people" category does not automatically need an eponymous "[Newspaper]" category to parent it even if only one or two things can actually be filed directly in that parent category — eponymous categories for things are only created when there's a lot of spinoff content that needs eponym-related categorization beyond the standard schemes. By the same token, every musical group does not automatically get an eponymous category just because they have "[Band] albums" and "[Band] songs" categories — they get an eponym if they're like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, where there's a lot of additional content that falls outside the standard albums+songs scheme, but not if all they have is their main article and the standard subcategories. The test for an eponymous category is whether it's aiding navigation, not just whether the thing it's eponymizing exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 July 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:Politics formatting 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful; this subcategory is actually vaguer than one of its parents, ("Election and referendum result templates"). It only contains two templates (should be {{Election table}} and {{Election table/header}}; the category may not have updated yet) who actually match better with the parent. I just don't see the point of keeping this category.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:24, 5 July 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:Template documentation message boxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Category:Template documentation message boxes

Perspectives on Muhammad and Jesus[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 to delete; rename to Category:Religious perspectives on Jesus and Category:Religious perspectives on Muhammad. Timrollpickering 08:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This concerns Category:Perspectives on Muhammad and Category:Perspectives on Jesus. We don't have Category:Perspectives tree. They come from Category:Religious comparison but perspective =/= comparison. Suggest deletion, the child articles/cats should be directly in C:Jesus and C:Muhammad. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:05, 5 July 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:Far-left political parties in Israel[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. Timrollpickering 08:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: compare Category:Far-left political parties by country with Category:Far-left politics by country. Currently the categories are too specific and they should go up "a layer". wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A better option would be to rename e.g. Category:Far-left political parties in Israel to Category:Far-left political organizations in Israel, while also merging the contents to Category:Far-left political parties and Category:Socialist parties in Israel, but this might be creating unnecessary category clutter on the articles. – Fayenatic London 17:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Tentative keep; anything Communist should be in this tree, for example. Marcocapelle correctly notes that this is severely underpopulated. I'm only "tentative" because I can't prove that a significant number of relevant articles exists. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the waters where I sail the term far-left is traditionally used for anything left of the mainstream communist parties, exclusively (i.e. not including these parties but including e.g. trotskyists and maoists). This pratice seems to be enshrined by Lenin's own famous work "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, with terms left-wing communism, leftism and far-left later used quasi-synonymously. During the Cold War, parties such as the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party would never have been described as far-left parties. Place Clichy (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since most categories named "Far-left politics in [country]" consist almost solely of political organizations anyways. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and underused and not clearly defined categories, with the comment above that communist parties are not far-left parties. Place Clichy (talk) 10:07, 17 July 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.

Ancient Greece[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 Category:History books about ancient Greece; rename Category:Works about Ancient Greece (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have lots of categories dealing with pre-mediaeval Greece in which the name is "Ancient", and others in which it's "ancient". I'm not clear which one's best. "Ancient" seems to dominate, but in running text, e.g. the Ancient Greece article, it's virtually always "ancient" unless it's at the start of a sentence. This is a test-the-waters nomination; if we can achieve consensus in here, I expect to nominate the categories that don't fit the consensus here, unless there's good reason on an individual category (e.g. if we decide on "ancient" and there's some sort of organisation with "Ancient Greece" in the title, I'd skip it). Of course, if you can argue for keeping the current mix of "ancient" and "Ancient", please do. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ancient for both. I like title case, but we don't use it in Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't use it in running text, since "ancient" isn't part of the name (I would distinguish this from Ancient Greek as the proper name for the language). So if we're not using title case, there's no reason to capitalize "ancient" in category titles. I can't see any reason to treat these two categories differently; if one is renamed, don't rename the other. I note that the capitalization of the first word in the title of Wikipedia articles is irrelevant for linking purposes; the words "ancient Greece" link to the article "Ancient Greece" without a redirect being necessary, so there's no need for the words "ancient Greece" to match the capitalization of that article. P Aculeius (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So P Aculeius, you would say that anything with "Ancient Greek" should be left alone if it refers to the language, comparable to how we always capitalise "Modern English" in running text? In case I were unclear, "Ancient Greek" dominates category titles even if I ignore titles that begin with those words; for example, Category:Ancient Greece has six such subcategories, of which two are "ancient" and four are "Ancient". And sorry to confuse you about these two categories: I brought them here because unless someone has an argument for keeping the current mix, everyone should support renaming one or the other. Thank you for starting the discussion, and please don't interpret me as badgering you: since my goal is to use this as a test, I want to understand your thinking carefully, in case your view gets consensus. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely how "Ancient Greek" looks to me; the name of a language in technical contexts, like "Old English" or "Middle High German". In that specific context, "Ancient" is part of the name, not merely a description that could be replaced with other adjectives without changing the definition of the phrase. That's not the case with "ancient Greece", since the concept of antiquity is broad and amorphous (as is that of Greece, to some extent). I don't expect to see "ancient Greece" used to identify a specific time or place that could fall under such a heading, or as any more of a proper name than "ancient Babylon" or "ancient Egypt" or any other location/civilization with "ancient" placed in front of it. In the title of a work, or an article, we expect "ancient" to be capitalized. But if we're not using title case, then it shouldn't be. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, this is exactly the detailed explanation that I needed. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 5 July 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:NOAA Weather Radio stations[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 09:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per a recent AFD consensus, all of the standalone articles about NOAA Weather Radio transmitters were redirected to the parent service on the grounds that they do not individually meet WP:NMEDIA's conditions for the notability of individual radio stations — and the result has been that all that's actually remaining in this category anymore is 30 straggling leftovers that were already redirects before the 200+ standalone articles around them got redirected. So there's no value in maintaining this category anymore, because a category which exists just to contain differently named redirects to the same target isn't aiding navigation. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify. We already have lots of categories of redirects by status or subject; why not just convert this into one? If I understand Bearcat rightly, there are 200+ potential pages for this category, its scope is clear, and deciding whether or not to include a page in it will be easy. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
200 redirects that all lead to the exact same place? The value in categorizing for that is exactly equal to the number zero. Categorizing redirects can aid navigation if the redirects are leading to different places — but if they're all leading to the same target anyway, categorizing them loses that value. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I had not realized the articles were deleted. Can someone point me to the discussion link?PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless and obsolete category. It also may encourage people to create articles about individual transmitters, which would be an undesirable outcome.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need to have an "article" category that contains just redirects. DexDor (talk) 13:14, 7 July 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_July_5&oldid=871691958"