Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:Maneater film series[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard. ★Trekker (talk) 23:16, 18 June 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:Ecology of Cape Verde[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: there's no real need for this category; Cape Verde's environment and biota categories suffice. Tom Radulovich (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this has been emptied by the nom, if anyone is wondering. Oculi (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should not have been emptied out of process, though. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and endorse Grutness' comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This and the Ecology of South Africa CFD on the same day's log are currently going in different directions despite raising the exact same issue. There are structures at Category:Ecology by region and Category:Ecology by country that, while not comprehensive, have many more subcategories and entries that should be discussed all together as to whether it's a useful grouping. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many categories which are appropriate for large countries with many articles (such as South Africa) but not for small countries with a paucity of articles (like Cape Verde). As such, this is not "exactly the same issue". Grutness...wha? 04:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and restore to whatever this was before it was emptied - it has container articles and is part of a set. SportingFlyer T·C 06:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been restored to how it was - containing one subcat and no articles. And it's only part of a very sparsely populated set of about half a dozen national categories, all for countries with far more articles on ecology. At the moment, this fails WP:SMALLCAT. Grutness...wha? 13:46, 22 June 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:Ecology of South Africa[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, and no real need for it; the categories for South African biota, flora, fauna, environment, and ecoregions suffice.Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:58, 18 June 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.

Most centenarian categories[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost no one in these categories is notable for being a centenarian; rather they are notable for other achievements (suggesting that being a centenarian is not defining). Randomly selected examples include:
Very few of these articles have any content that relates to their subject's longevity, beyond birth and death dates. Because life expectancy is increasing around the world, being a centenarian is less and less unusual and therefore less and less defining. (Being a supercentenarian is probably defining; those categories are not included here.) buidhe 18:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems to be the sort of factoid by which we categorise people, such as year of birth, year of death, school/university attended. Also we have an irritatingly frequent listing of these at cfd; the usual criterion cited is that these are not notable except for their longevity, so this is a novel departure. (Vera Lynn's longevity has been mentioned about 1000 times today on every UK news platform.) Oculi (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "we have an irritatingly frequent listing of these at cfd" Really? It doesn't appear that, for instance, Category:German centenarians has ever been discussed at CfD. [1]
    • WP:NONDEF states, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." I don't think that is met. Overall, I don't see how being a centenarian is different from noteworthy but nondefining awards, which are deleted all the time. buidhe 19:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF unless.... Only if there is evidence that a substantial number of people in these categories are primarily notable because of their longevity these categories should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Their status as centenarians is almost always covered in reputable sources, sometimes to a large extent. It's more defining than many of the other calendar-based categories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF (not worth mentioning in the lede of the vast majority of these articles) and WP:OCTRIVIA. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Obviously a defining characteristic, making these people a unique group, obvious from the article "Centenarian". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether is defining or not does not depend on Centenarian but depends on the biographies categorized by this characteristic. For people in these categories it is mostly a trivial characteristic, since they are notable for entirely different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as centenarians are after all not such a rare occurrence these days, it would be extremely unlikely that someone would reach enough fame to have a Wikipedia article for the simple fact of becoming centenarian (not so true about supercentenarians though). Even in the remote past, see e.g. how Ancient Roman centenarians is populated with people famous for something else, who also happened to reach old age. Place Clichy (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Category:Women centenarians, upmerge the rest to Category:Centenarians. Per WP:CATGENDER and since most centenarians are actually women, there is no need for a category dedicated to the majority group. I have no trouble about keeping a Centenarians category for people with reliable sources mentioning them as such, but national subcategories are overkill, especially as most only have a handful of articles, and sometimes only redirects. Place Clichy (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most centenarians who are noteworthy enough to have a Wiki entry have a great deal of press coverage for being a centenarian. I would assume, if sources keep making mention of the fact that someone is a centenarian, it is obviously of interest to others. ExRat (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definingness in this case is not about press coverage about being centenarian, it is about being a prime characteristic in someone's biography. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we now get to decide which aspects of coverage in reputable sources are worthy? WP:RS works both ways. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." So this is more restrictive than every characteristic getting coverage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly every obituary of Vera Lynn mentions her age (103) before anything else. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obituaries are a limited and selective subset of sources. Of course this is the type of sources that emphasises age - of everybody, not only of centennarians. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no need to have a category just for somebodies age. It's better to just put down some of the normally used categories. (for example, 1782 births or 2829 deaths, as these ones are actually helpful) These centenarian categories are useless and should be deleted. Koridas talk? 19:08, 21 June 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:Croatian Canadian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Croatian Canadian

Category:Minor Nintendo franchises[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:Nintendo franchises. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minor is WP:POV and inclusion criteria for this category seem to be fairly arbitrary. OceanHok (talk) 16:16, 18 June 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:Esoteric Norwich[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 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT already covered by Norwich#Esoteric associations. Cat is spuriously beefed up by inclusion of tangentially related articles. jnestorius(talk) 11:04, 18 June 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:Old requests for scientific peer review[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 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to have been applied arbitrarily to talk pages. There isn't a defining process, nor characteristic that links which articles have had this category applied vs. which articles have not. Additionally, here on Wikipedia we treat edits on their merit, rather than distinguish edits which are "scientific" in nature vs. those that other editors make.
So, I think this category should be deleted from all articles and from our website because (1) it's not in line with our principles and (2) it's not clear how it got added or what process it refers to. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:25, 18 June 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:International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame inductees[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCASSOC)
The International Ice Hockey Federation is based in Switzerland and is actually quite prominent as the world governing body for ice hockey. Their IIHF Hall of Fame is more obscure though and was established in 1997. The inductees are are announced in a ceremony at the Ice Hockey World Championships (although article makes no mention of it) and the Hall of Fame given space for a an exhibit within The Hockey Hall of Fame (that article does discuss it). The biography articles in this category overwhelmingly mention the honor in passing with other awards, so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified at List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, per WP:NONDEFINING and per WP:OCAWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The IIHF Hall of Fame is absolutely not obscure. It is the highest recognition for international ice hockey in the world, and is absolutely defining of a hockey player's career. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD, the articles do not pay much attention to it. But I am willing to change my mind if there is evidence that reliable sources (but not the Hall of Fame website) do mention this more prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see the nominator's argument when it comes to people like Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky but beyond people who played in the National Hockey League, I think it's clear that their IIHF Hall of Fame nomination is a defining characteristic (specifically if they come from a smaller country). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to point to some examples of articles from small countries that you do think are defining. Starting at the top of the list article so I'm not cherry picking, Quido Adamec (short article from Czech Republic) mentions it in passing with a local HOF, Boris Alexandrov (longer article from Kazakhstan, which isn't "small" area wise) doesn't mention it at all, Ernest Aljančič (shortish article for the first Slovenian inductee) mentions it in passing, Helmuts Balderis (short to medium article from Latvia) mentions it in passing. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above sppears to be an attack on the quality of articles, rather than the merit of a category. While many articles could be improved, that does not make a category any more or less defining. Subjects like Quido Adamec or Ernest Aljančič wouldn't even pass WP:GNG without being inducted into the IIHF Hall of Fame. That in itself is a reason why induction is a defining characteristic of a hockey player. Flibirigit (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's harder to establish defining-ness of categories (for/against) with shorter articles since there's not a separate intro and they often need work so I accurately described their current state to give a clear view of how articles for smaller country players treat the award. Sports biographies don't have to pass WP:GNG to be WP:NOTABLE, only the more inclusive WP:NSPORT, which frequently uses Halls of Fame to save time since, if someone is inducted, they must have done notable things earlier in their career. (Incidentally, I would have no objection to adding this HOF into the WP:NHOCKEY sub-section to make things simpler in the article space.) But, in the category space, awards that reflect earlier career accomplishments generally fail WP:DEFINING and are converted to lists. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the quality of an article has no bearing on whether a category is defining. The assertion that the IIHF Hall of Fame recognizes person for something earlier in their career is absurd. Induction into the Hall of Fame is for the whole of one's career. Flibirigit (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the biggest hall of fame for players that are not necessarily in the NHL. It is a very big deal in Europe for example. The state of articles does not determine how defining a category is. This seems like a very absurd nomination. Also not quite sure how the idea that this hall enshrines people for their early career came up. This is a competitor Hall of Fame to the Hockey Hall of Fame and encompasses their entire career. It was created because the other hall of fame does not generally recognize players who did not play in the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly disagree on the nom but I'm not going to be misquoted: I said the state of articles can make it harder to tell if a category is defining (see my words above) and not that short articles should not be categorized because they're length somehow makes a category non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly mention that articles either don't mention it or mention it in passing as a way to say it is not defining. None of that is relevant to whether the category is defining. Especially since most of that is symptomatic of most of our hockey editors being in North America so articles on players from other countries tend to suffer. Your comments are perpetuating systemic bias. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thanks very much for clarifying where we *do* have an honest disagreement: I absolutely do think that looking at how articles overall treat an award--or any other topic--is helpful to determine whether a category is defining and will therefore aid navigation for readers. I'm nominating an award/exhibit whose physical presence is in North America so I'm surprised at the claim of bias in favor of North America. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The award is housed in North America that is true, but North American media doesn't cover it in the way they do the other Hockey Hall of Fame. For Canadians (and I say this as one so no disrespect to any intended) when it comes to hockey in a general broad sense its NHL/Olympics or nothing. Whereas in Europe they treat the World Championships and other international events as being the major event of the year whereas over here its barely a blip. Partly because the World Championships happen at the same time as the Stanley Cup playoffs do in North America, so for many decades all the best North American players would be busy with the playoffs and so couldn't play in the World Championships. Its only been over the last couple decades that the playoffs have started affecting the other countries as more of their players are now in the NHL. As such media and fans cover/follow the Hall of Fame for international play much more readily in Europe than they do in North America. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IIHF Hall of Fame is not your regional hockey hall of fame at your street corner's. It is a most defining accomplishment. Place Clichy (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djsasso and HickoryOughtShirt's reasoning and arguments. It's definitely a defining award for ice hockey players, particularly so for European/international players. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is defining please provide evidence based on biographies in reliable sources of people who are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 19 June 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:Magic: The Gathering Hall of Fame inductees[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 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC, WP:OCAWARD)
Magic: The Gathering is a popular collectible card game now owned by Hasbro which coordinates formal competitions with cash prizes. The Magic: The Gathering Hall of Fame feels more like a gold-level frequent-flyer program from an airline than a traditional hall of fame. You have to be competing for at least 10 years (although admission is not automatic and criteria have varied over the years) and then you get perqs including waived fees and special invites. Indeed, per the article "If a Hall of Fame player is a current Platinum level member of the Pro Players Club, the higher reward will apply to them." This doesn't seem any more defining than listing people with platinum membership in American Airlines AAdvantage. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 18 June 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_June_18&oldid=969739342"