Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 7 November 9 >

November 8[edit]

Category:Traditions by university or college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 17#Category:Traditions by university or college

Category:Autobot subgroups[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 (merge and delete are equivalent). MER-C 10:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minor, unnecessary category TTN (talk) 17:48, 8 November 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:Lists of Fellows of the Royal Society[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. MER-C 11:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Case fix per various recent discussions and article renamings. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is no reason to capitalize fellows. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Keep -- This a unique honour, entitling the person to the initials FRS. I think that is is the only membership that Royal Society has. This is an exceptional case. Fellowships granted by other societies may not require this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. I agree that this is an exceptional case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—um ... what is "exceptional" about it? We do not cap "presidents of the US". What's so boasty about fellows of the Royal Society that they should demand special treatment against our styleguide? Tony (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NCCAPS, and various previous WP:RM discussions about lists of this sort, including specifically of fellows in particular. Nothing like this remains a proper name when genericized, including by pluralization (see, e.g., Lord Mayor of London vs. List of lord mayors of London and Category:Lord mayors of London. See also the aforementioned List of presidents of the United States. There's absolutely nothing "exceptional" about this particular case; it's just knee-jerk "oppose lower-casing just to oppose it" stuff from someone who shows up in RM after RM incorrectly arguing that everything they like to capitalize "is a proper name" or otherwise an exception to make.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 16 November 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:Waist aprons[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: speedily deleted WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by mistake. Sorry. Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied - sole author requesting deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 9 November 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:Franz Kafka characters[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. MER-C 10:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redirect-only category. I have no idea if it could potentially be populated, but it currently has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Category includes only two pages, both of which are redirects. JIP | Talk 21:29, 9 November 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:Washington International University alumni[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. MER-C 10:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Washington International University is a diploma mill. There can be legitimate questions wether such diploma mills can have alumni, and wether holding a degree from one can be a defining characteristic. Here's a link to the deletion discussion about a previous such category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Holding a degree for which one merely pays is NN. The WP page says the university offers "traditional" degrees, which require study. Conceivably graduates from such degrees might deserve an alumni category, but not those holding "accelerated" degrees which require no study at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron: then again, you would expect a diploma mill to claim that it delivers actual degrees. Place Clichy (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Point accepted. I had wondered if there were any degrees that were the result of substantial study. Perhaps that is in fact a non-existent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 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:Psychology terminology[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. MER-C 10:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the articles are not about terminology. The titles of these articles may be terms, but articles should be categorized by the article's topic. There is no need to merge, the articles are already in other appropriate psychology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless and until a more systemic solution can be found. All of our terminology categories are like this (see, e.g., the parent Category:Medical terminology). The problem is that the word terminology has been broadened in everyday use to mean more than the study or systematics of terms within a field, to just refer to the terms themselves. We either need to use a different word or just accept that these categories will include both articles on terms and articles on systems/sets of terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While some terminology categories still exist, many have meanwhile deleted in CfD discussions for exactly the same reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terminology categories are not for articles titled by technical terms. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 9 November 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:Medical virtual communities[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: split. MER-C 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: much the same thing, but slightly wider scope. Arguably motherhood and pregnancy are not medical conditions, but they generate similar needs for support. No definition article for either, and support groups is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 28 October[[:Category:Medical associations 2019 (UTC)
  • Question, three articles are about professionals' (physicians') networks. While they do not belong in a support group category, where should we leave them? 06:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to leave them there. Professionals also need support groups. Rathfelder (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 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:Collaboration with the British Empire[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 manually (i.e. selective merge). MER-C 11:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am nominating this category and all subcats for deletion. They are POV cats created by Claíomh Solais, who was blocked for disruptive editing of anti-Western nature. The people in these categories are already in other relevant categories (e.g. subcats of Category:Spies) or don't belong at all. For an example of the latter, Alexander Halpern, currently in Category:Russian collaborators with the British Empire, fled from the Soviet Union and later worked for MI6 during World War II. He was not a collaborator, just a refugee. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Irish collaborators with the British Empire was already listed for deletion. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this clearly seems disruptive editing. Looking at the French category, it is filled with people linked to several British WWII outfits such as the SOE. Knowing that France was actually allied with the UK in WWII, and that it was occupied by Germany and not Britain, the LABELs of collaborators and British Empire are both laughable and anachronic. I would have expected to see the people who made the Quiberon landing possible, but this does not seem to be the orientation, or knowledge, of the creator. Place Clichy (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure -- Collaboration is a pejorative term whose use implies a lack of NPOV. I am glad that the creator has been blocked. Nevertheless, some of what he/she produced does provide genuine categories, which need to be renamed. Rather than "British Empire" which was always a nebulous entity, I would put United Kingdom.
  • American: this is about loyalists during the American War of Independence, who sided with "Great Britain" In this case, not British Empire. Suggest Category:Loyalists during American War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Danish, French, 1 German (a Jewish refugee) and 1 Spaniard were in some form participating in the Allied struggle against the Axis powers in WWII: the French should perhaps be categorised as "Free French". The other Spaniard does not appear to fit here at all.
  • Russian: one was a refugee a "White Russian", who spied for UK in WWII. The other was a defector (outside the theme of the others).
  • Italian and Indian (one person) was an ant-fascist refugee who fought for UK in WWII.
Suggest Rename to Fooian people in British service in WWII, but purge 1 Spaniard and the Russian defector (possibly a few more). However perhaps someone knows of a suitable category into which such people might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible that some of the entries here might be validly part of Category:British spies, but not usually, and since this came from such a bad faith support, better to burn it down for now. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge to Category:World War II spies for the United Kingdom, that category is a reasonable target for some of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but some of these were not precisely "spies": "intelligence agents" might be broader (but parented under spies). However, what do we do about the fighter pilot; Free French forces in British pay; Polish forces in British pay (a whole brigade, I think)? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All six articles in the French category fit "spies". A Polish category has not been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge per Marcocapelle (and Peterkingiron who has the same reasoning but didn't seem to know the cat. existed already), and delete otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:12, 16 November 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:Songs written by Steven Dale Jones[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. MER-C 11:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Until this songwriter's notability is confirmed by the existence of a Wikipedia article, we should not have a category for these songs. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category is the collection of songs by a common defining item, the songwriter. Whether the songwriter is individually notable does not concern the categorisation of the songs. There is no guideline which suggests that an article should exist for the category to exist, only that if both exist the category should follow the naming of the article. NB Many similar cats have been nominated and none have been deleted. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richhoncho: Thanks; I was not aware of the precedents. If you could point me to 2-3 of those discussions I would be happy to withdraw this nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: It's a pain looking for them, but I found this one, where when the article was deleted the category was changed to the artist's real name, DOE. Do you want more? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because Steven Dale Jones isn't notable per se, but because this category is non-defining. For any of the songs in this category, do RS commonly and consistently refer to it as a song written by Steven Dale Jones? Not as far as I can tell. Yes, a song's writer can be a defining characteristic, but usually because the writer is particularly notable. Being written by Oscar Hammerstein is a defining characteristic of My Favorite Things (song). Being written by Max Martin is a characteristic of ...Baby One More Time (song). Being written by Meghan Trainor is a defining characteristic of Ain't Your Mama. Because these writers are all commonly discussed in RS when talking about the respective song. Not the case here. Colin M (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all but one of the songs mention SDJ in the first sentence. The writer of a song is self-evidently defining. Oculi (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 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:Questionable[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. MER-C 10:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is no longer used by the Questionable Cabal and also has pointed out to be in violation of WP:NOTFORUM . Upsidedown Keyboard ...? (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent categories, per WP:SMALLCAT, unless of course the category is empty by the time this discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the category is now empty after the template that was in it got speedy-deleted G7 after the author (same as nom for this CfD) declared it abandoned. Ikluft (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Abandoned maintenance projects don't need to permanently retain their old empty tracking categories, and I can't think of any other potential use this could be repurposed for. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is empty now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 13 November 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:Trololo[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 deleted. as vandalism. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessness DBaK (talk) 10:43, 8 November 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:Health care-related timelines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Health care-related timelines

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_8&oldid=1055521792"