Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:Northern Baptist College staff[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 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, about a man who spent a couple of years there Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- The problem is that we do not have a main article on the College: [1]. It is a tertiary college, of a kind for which we normally have an article. The present article is a redirect to Baptists Together, an article on the denomination, which in fact says nothing about the college. It looks as if it a rather small college as it appears only to have five staff, but this is not uncommon for denominational colleges (in US, theological seminaries). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: I do not understand your objection. It seems as if you think that the article is listed on AfD, while this discussion is just about the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is a CFD, not an AFD. I was suggesting that Northern Baptist College should be a substantive article, not a redirect, with the usual alumni and academic staff categories, this category being the latter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (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:Air Force 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: rename. MER-C 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "air force" is used as a generic term here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd support this as a speedy rename as well. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2020 (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:Issues[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 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Issues is a dab page. I don't see how this category could satisfy WP:CATDEF. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issues cat; Section break 1[edit]
  • Keep. there are abundant ways that this category can serve a highly-useful purpose, for the purposes of the encyclopedia project. if the category criteria need to be defined more narrowly, then that can be addressed further at the category's page. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to enlighten us as to what the "highly-useful purpose" is? DexDor (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
to collect articles of various types which pertain specifically to the topic of "issues." this includes articles which focus upon and describe various types of issues, i.e such as valence issue or wedge issue; such articles already appear in this category.
as well, it would compile various cats and subcats which pertain to "issues" as a topic in their own right, not only topics which are divided by issue. every profession and every field has issues which it faces as an ongoing field of inquiry. so it is not intended to be a place to collect every individual topic which constitutes a political issue, or even only categories at Wikipedia divided up by issue; rather, it is to compile various topics which are inherently delineated by issue, as a specific type of inquiry within various professions, fields or academic disciplines. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I have revised my comment above somewhat; in fairness to your insights, I will restate my views here to fully respond to your valid question. this cat is not for issues by type; it is for the topic of "Issues" themselves. we have articles like wedge issue and valence issue that are fully valid for inclusion in this category. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I'm actually confused by what the "Issues" category actually refers to exactly. I came across it in the sociology WikiProject, but it does not seem to be sociological. There is also "Category:Social issues" (how do I link to this page here?). Roostnerve (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like this: category:social issues. You can also use {{cl}}. Paradoctor (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 1a[edit]
@Paradoctor:, thanks for your helpful question. No I want this category for all meanings of "Issues" that are valid for this purpose. My comments above were meant to convey that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"all meanings of "Issues" that are valid for this purpose" Can you spot the problem? The instant you exclude a meaning of "issue", you have to disambiguate. "valid for this purpose" constitutes exactly this kind of exclusion. Or would you include articles pertaining to Issues, Issues, Issues, and Issues? What about Prince Harry, issue of Princess Diana? Paradoctor (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the alternate and varying use of a word should not actually prohibit from using that word for a category. what about Category:Effects? you could make absolutely the same point about that word as well. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

would you accept the category more if it was renamed, to include a qualifier in order to make the distinction? the question though is what qualifier would be effective. I'd have to think about that. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, we could try category:Issues (conceptual and societal). --Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that creating Category:Issues (conceptual and societal) while this deletion discussion is ongoing, was a move that circumvents this deletion discussion, even if that was not your intention. I will therefore add it to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
errrrmmmm.... well Debresser, okay, I do totally respect your concerns on this, and your point. However, sorry, but that doesn't seem entirely fair to me. so now, comments that people made here on one category, will be treated as if they apply to both? sorry, but that doesn't seem fair, imho. please note, I make all my category edits using hotcat, so everything I do in this area is immediately apparent and transparent to all users. I will wait to allow others to comment, but sorry, my opinion is that any such effort needs its own deletion proposal at CfD. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created that new category entirely as a positive step. I meant for it to be a useful, constructive and positive proposal to add to this discussion here. since someone here has objected to that category, I have now deleted it. we can discuss the proposal for this proposed category here if anyone wishes, but the category itself will be left for another time. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issues cat; Section break 2[edit]
An "Unidentified sound" is not an unsolved problem, and should not have been categorized that way. it would be an unexplained phenomenon, which is quite different. Actual unsolved problems would be items like those listed in this article: List of unsolved problems in statistics. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Issue is vague. In articles we would add {{Clarify}}, but since in titles we can't do this - we should not have this. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2020 (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:Laurentian Bank of Canada people[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 19:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Boldly upmerged Carlos Leitão to Category:Laurentian Bank of Canada where only one other potentially notable Laurentian executive was listed, which left Category:Laurentian Bank of Canada people as an empty category. Category:Laurentian Bank of Canada only has four articles in it anyway, so seemed like a natural, prudent move. Contemplated tagging as speedy deletion, but thought I should err on the side of caution and bring it to CfD. Feel free to !vote as speedy delete, though, if you wish.

Friendly ping to Marcocapelle here, who I am assuming is a fellow Canadian. Doug Mehus T·C 18:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and I feel flattered by the assumption: apparently my Dutch-English accent isn't that pronounced. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator and delete. Aan de Ijsel? Debresser (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For future reference, nominator should be aware that it's not considered proper process to empty the category out first and then propose it for deletion — rather, you should list the category for deletion first and let the upmerging result from the conclusion of the deletion discussion. But with just two articles involved, it's not worth reverting everything just to have it unreverted again in a matter of days — the snowball clause applies. That said, the target category still has just four articles even after the upmerge; one of those four articles is a person who probably shouldn't be categorized there at all, on grounds roughly analogous to WP:PERFCAT, because he's a former employee of the bank who's notable for other reasons and not for his role with the bank per se; and another of the four articles is a person who hasn't been properly referenced as clearing our notability standards at all, because the only reliable source present in the entire article is a listicle. So the target category should probably be deleted too, but that would have to be handled in a separate discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2020 (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:HIV/AIDS research institutes[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 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all the organisations which organise or undertake research are described as research institutes. Rathfelder (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a technicality, but support as correct. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2020 (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:Tevilat Kelim[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 19:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, that is to say, I don't see how this category can ever become any larger (except perhaps by adding Mikveh, which is not an article that would be specific to this category). Debresser (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2020 (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:Cycling clubs 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. MER-C 20:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough clubs to justify an intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (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:Anesthesia organizations[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 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No obvious distinction Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2020 (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:Alianza Lima 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. MER-C 19:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as a WP:SMALLCAT Izno (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 04:12, 13 January 2020 (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:Operas by Rugilė Barzdžiukaitė[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 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with no potential for growth. The subject has not even been involved in multiple operas. I would have just depopulated for C1 but alas. czar 17:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's part of Category:Operas by composer so WP:SMALLCAT justifies its retention (perhaps the 'unless' clause should be placed at the beginning). To judge from this Rugilė_Barzdžiukaitė has been involved in 2 operas. The rationale is that the composer is a defining characteristic of an opera. Oculi (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi, where are you reading that Barzdžiukaitė was the composer? She's a director by trade. Sources do not distinguish a composer such that I've found thus far, but Lapelytė is the one who's a composer by trade. Also I had seen the ltwiki article, which doesn't have independent articles for the two operas. Would Category:Operas by women composers not be sufficient? czar 18:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for Category:Operas by Vaiva Grainytė, which you just created. Grainytė is a writer/poet. Her unsourced article lists Lapelytė as the composer in the trio. czar 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 04:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she is not the composer, then the article should be removed, and the category deleted as empty, without involvement of WP:CFD. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser, per my nomination statement, I already tried this. czar 14:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary explained that you removed the article because you wanted to get rid of the category. That is out of order depopulation of a category, and the WP:CFD guideline says not to do this. So the revert was correct. If you would redo the remove, this time claiming that it is incorrect since she was not the composer, then the edit would not be reverted (unless it would be shown that she is the composer). Debresser (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser, sorry, where does WP:CFD say not to revert the bold creation of a category that has a single member? I'd also be interested in the precedent for creating "Operas by X" for composers with a single credit to their name. czar 17:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a rule, one shouldn't empty categories when nominating them for deletion. I understand your point, as the category was deletion the day before it was nominated for deletion, but still. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2020 (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:New Century Foundation[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has three articles, four including the titular article. WP:OVERCAT. New Century Foundation publishes American Renaissance (magazine), with Jared Taylor as editor. funded by the Pioneer Fund. Including all of these in White supremacy in the United States would be fine. This category is too small to stand, and there's little chance it will ever have more. Guy (help!) 00:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, few enough articles to cross-link them directly in the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The articles are connected through the organization behind them, rather than a generic category on white supremacy. Dimadick (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 04:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. Also, four articles is already something. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Five articles is the usual minimum. Here we have the foundation; its magazine; its publisher; etc. However I doubt we will get or need much more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2020 (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/2020_January_13&oldid=938416476"