Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19[edit]

Category:Distance education in Nicaragua[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 action taken, discussion deferred to the bundled nomination below. MER-C 18:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is about an institution Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 19 October 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:Geographical Indications in Kongu Nadu[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. MER-C 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only 15 unique articles in total, it is not necessary to start subdividing the parent category. In addition, it does not seem helpful to subdivide a modern designation (GI) based on historical boundaries (Kongu Nadu is a historical region of Tamil Nadu). (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Magentic Manifestations) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:52, 19 October 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.

Wikipedians contributing under Dual License[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Wikipedians contributing under Dual License

Category:English-language podcasts[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 09:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and non-defining. WP:OVERLAPCAT Most podcasts, at present, are in English. Rathfelder (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for exactly the same reasons as in yesterday's discussion about English-language websites. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact that there is a scheme of this for English-language media as well as podcasts by language (also I am not at all convinced that "most" podcasts are in English--source?). Additionally, procedural close since the entire scheme of podcasts by language is proposed for deletion but they aren't all tagged together. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only evidence we have at present is the categorisation system, which has 85 English and one Russian and nothing else. English Wikipedia is, unsurprisingly, biased towards English language media and coverage of online material much more so than older stuff. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the procedural close: the reasons for deletion are different so it is entirely valid to nominate the two siblings separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 19 October 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:Podcasts by language[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. Category:Russian-language podcasts and Category:English-language podcasts (the surrounding nominations and the only content of this category) were both deleted. MER-C 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcats. English language, 250 articles. Russian 1 Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should (only) be deleted if the nomination above and the nomination below result in a deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems unlikely to me that Wikipedia only has one single article about a non-English language podcast. That can't be possible right? I would have assumed we would have at least a few articles about Spanish language podcasts or something.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the scheme of media by language. Why are podcasts different from films or books? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because podcasts, like websites, are new. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 19 October 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:Russian-language podcasts[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 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons for deletion are different so it is entirely valid to nominate the two siblings separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Vasily Strelnikov from the category and if the category is empty then delete it but allow re-creation if we get any articles about Russian podcasts. DexDor (talk) 19:47, 19 October 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:Non-free images for NFUR review[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Category:Non-free images for NFUR review

Category:Daughters (band) EPs[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. MER-C 10:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization of one EP release with the article for it redirected is better suited to the parent category of album releases. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One entry, which is a redirect. By all means merge with album releases. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 27 October 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:Educational video websites[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 to Category:Educational websites. Even if considering the blocked socks contributions, the arguments to merge are better supported by policy. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Most educational websites include videos. How do you decide if a video site is educational?Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, a case of WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Answering the nominator's question is quite easy. A website whose contents is in video format and whose focus is education is an educational video website. For example, Channel 9 is a video website, Wikiversity is not. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of detail is rarely provided in the articles. It might make sense if we had a category for Educational websites without videos. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, you're saying someone writes a whole article about a website but does not check whether the website exclusively contains a large number of those massive things called "video"? flowing dreams (talk page) 10:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is exactly what I am saying. I've been through several hundred. I doubt whether any of the websites exclusively consist of videos, and few of the educational sites have no videos. Rathfelder (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright then. We can finish this dicussion quickly. There are 17 articles in the nominated category. (I added Channel 9 (Microsoft) today.) According to your head count, which ones are video-centric and which ones are not? flowing dreams (talk page) 06:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just FYI, here is my head count.
Website name Wikipedia says My investigation says
60second Recap Yes No
Bluprint Yes Yes
BYJU'S Does not say Yes
Channel 9 (Microsoft) Does not say Yes
CreativeMornings Does not say Inconclusive
Khan Academy Does not say Inconclusive
Knowing Neurons No, but they have a YouTube channel No, but they have videos
New Europe Market Does not say Yes
ResearchChannel Does not say No, but they have a YouTube channel
SchoolTube Yes Yes
ScienceStage Yes Inconclusive (Error 503: Service unavailable)
SexyMandarin Yes (but let's AfD this) Inconclusive (Blocked in my region)
Social impact of YouTube Not an article about an educational website
TeacherTube Yes Yes
Teaching Channel Yes Yes
TED (conference) Yes Yes
Wireless Philosophy Yes Inconclusive
IMHO, there are enough websites (8) to warrant a full category. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the above table is an additional reason for deletion: it apparently requires too much WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mislabeling source-checking as OR is a grossly fat lie, in violation of WP:CIVIL. I didn't know this discussion was so important to you that you would resort to such ugnly, underhand tactics. Otherwise, I would have never come. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that important to me, but "My investigation says" quite literally is WP:OR, isn't it? Or else, which source labeled New Europe Market as an educational video website? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but "My investigation says" quite literally is WP:OR, isn't it?" Not if it is purely source-checking. If you don't like the sources of these articles and want to contest them, there is a {{citation needed}} for it. Why attack me? I just tabulate the results. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the table, the article "does not say" it. You do realize that the table has 17 entries and in my last sentence, I deemed 8 of them worthy being counted for the category, don't you? Since then, however, I have realized that the primary source can be used for such trivia. So, your source is neweumarket.com. Do I dare change 8 to 9 now? flowing dreams (talk page) 06:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not say it but in your own investigation column you put it on "yes". However neweumarket.com does not tell that it is an educational video website, while most other sources confirm that New Europe Market is a marketing conference, which is something completely different than an educational website. In other words I have strong doubts about your investigation, and I would certainly not base a category on such an investigation, per WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong. I am not accusing you of hypocrisy. But you don't doubt my "investigation" because of what you see. It is a fact that two people cannot convince each other, unless they are friends. You and I are not. Hence, there is no point continuing this. If you'll excuse, I'll unwatch this page. Please refrain from sending reply notifications. Just do yourself a favor and don't pelt WP:OR at another editor who has never touch a disputed article. flowing dreams (talk page) 16:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorisation depends on the content of the articles, not original research. Rathfelder (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether there are educational sites with videos. Clearly there are. Are they significantly different from the other educational sites, the large majority of which also have videos, though perhaps more other material? And is the distinction significant for users? Is it even permanent - a site which has no videos now may have lots next month, or vice versa? Rathfelder (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:02, 19 October 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:Distance education in the Philippines[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 action taken, discussion deferred to the bundled nomination below. MER-C 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about institutions Rathfelder (talk) 07:54, 19 October 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:Distance education in Canada[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 action taken, discussion deferred to the bundled nomination below. MER-C 18:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about institutions Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rathfelder, My concern is that this may end up being a WP:NARROWCAT should an eventual Category:Distance education in Canada be re-created. Why can't we co-mingle institutions and articles on the topic in the same broader category? I don't think the inclusion of "institutions" is particularly helpful and is unnecessarily wordy.Doug Mehus (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a very well populated set of "education institutions based in Foo". There aren't many articles about education anywhere which are not about particular organisations, so there isnt much to mingle, and in most countries nothing. But if that changes we can resurrect the category.Rathfelder (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and it fits well in Category:Distance education institutions by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I'm not necessarily wedded to this structure in principle, but the way things are currently structured, 26 other countries besides Canada also have subcategories within the Category:Distance education by country category, while 21 countries besides Canada also have Category:Distance education institutions by country subcategories separately from that. Granted that in a lot of cases the institutions category is the only content that the more general "education" category has at all, so we could potentially stand to rethink how we handle the whole shebang — but there's no case for treating Canada differently from countries like Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which have separate categories for "Distance education" and "distance education institutions" which haven't been put up for discussion at all. It's also not even true that all of the contents here are institutions in the first place: there's also a template, two technical networks that are used as delivery mechanisms for distance education but are not themselves institutions, a radio station, a television station and a television series, none of which could legitimately be categorized as "institutions". I'm not opposed to the idea that we could potentially reconsider how we categorize distance education across the board — but pulling Canada, and only Canada, out of what's otherwise an international standard categorization scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme otherwise intact, no. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bearcat. This belongs as part of a larger conversation on rethinking the global distance education category structure. Whether that's here here, at the Village Pump, or elsewhere, I'm not sure. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - create subcat Category:Distance education institutions based in Canada. Oculi (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have it. Nomination is a bit misconstrued; he's actually trying to merge two categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 20 October 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:Distance education in India[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 action taken, discussion deferred to the bundled nomination below. MER-C 18:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about institutions Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 19 October 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:Distance education in Cyprus[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 action taken, discussion deferred to the bundled nomination below. MER-C 18:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 sub cat. which is already in Distance education institutions by country Rathfelder (talk) 07:43, 19 October 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:Spouses of United States senators[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 09:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Notability is not inherited, so this is nondef. ミラP 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What about other categories (e.g. Category:Spouses of American politicians)? Isn't being a politician's spouse a/the defining characteristic of, for example, Jill Biden? DexDor (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's evaluate it on a case by case basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jill Biden is notable as a Second Lady, which has its own separate category that hasn't been nominated and isn't going to be. Her notability has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Joe also served in the Senate, however. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the articles in this category generally spend few words on these people's role as the spouse of a senator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obviously our categories for First and Second Ladies aren't going anywhere, and it's certainly possible for the spouse of a congressperson to be independently notable for their own independent reasons — Michelle Obama is obviously notable in her own right, for example, but the fact that Barack served a term in the US Senate has nothing whatsoever to do with why. Then there's Bob and Liddy Dole, who are each notable because they were senators themselves, and not because the other one was too, but are still both filed here next to each other anyway. Then there's Julia Thorne, who's so minimally sourced that it's not even obvious that she's notable at all, and is certainly not "inherently" notable just because her husband served in the senate (or even because he unsuccessfully ran for president nearly 20 years after they split up, either.) This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these people's notabilities, because it has nothing to do with what they're notable for. Either they're independently notable for their own reasons and thus the fact that their spouse served in the US senate is just biographical data rather than the crux of a notability claim, or they're not independently notable at all and don't inherit notability just because of who they happened to be married to. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - consistency with everything that's been said at the House of Representatives spouses discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 11:38, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_19&oldid=927095828"