Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:Wikipedians with Mediawiki 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: Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too broad and too poorly-defined to be a useful user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:15, 27 September 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:Śmigielski family[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) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no article about this noble family and there is no evidence that these people belong to this nobitity. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 27 September 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:Etimesgut Şekerspor[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. The other category should be handled ideally via WP:CFDS. MER-C 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club changed name. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:32, 28 September 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:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato[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) 09:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct website. (The article claims In October 2017, S. Ye took over from a backup copy in 2016 to re-enact a running instance for other researchers still interested in mod_virgule., however that sentence was added by a globally locked user, who also added an external link to what claimed to be a resurrected running instance with legacy data, which is now itself dead, and http://advogato.org redirects to an archived version of itself.) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:19, 27 September 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:Wikipedians who contribute to Google Map Maker[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) 09:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the article, Google Map Maker was officially shut down on March 31, 2017 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:56, 27 September 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:Films featuring a title sequence by Saul Bass[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) 00:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While some of the opening sequences are memorable, none of them are defining to the film. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify if anyone wants to take on that task. With a couple exceptions (one of those being It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - but that is probably me being nostalgic about having seen it in the original Cinerama release :-)) they aren't defining to the film. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not part of an established category tree of title sequences by creator. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I've just reported the category's creator to ANI, and noticed this reviewing their contributions. I actually like this category and it's less disruptive than many of their other creations, but I don't see how it fits in with how categories are used. No need to listify, it's already at Saul Bass#Selected film title sequences. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 21 October 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:Dutugamunu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Category:Dutugamunu

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to LyricWiki[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) 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: LyricWiki is defunct. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User LyricWiki * Pppery * it has begun... 13:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I contribute to [x]" categories are potentially useful for collaboration here but "I contributed to [x] [y] years ago" categories are very unlikely to help us build an encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 27 September 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.

The arts by century, decade, year[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. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more years in 14th and 15th century
Nominator's rationale: merge as a redundant category layer in these early periods, almost every of the above container categories contains only two subcategories. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @BrownHairedGirl, Peterkingiron, Oculi, Dimadick, El cid, el campeador, Johnbod, Grutness, and Ham II: pinging participants in that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category pages have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • STRONGLY oppose all of this. As the nominator Marcocapelle notes, these are all container categories. So removing them will do precisely nothing to assist either readers or editors:
  1. it will not improve navigation.
  2. it will not reduce category clutter on articles, because the articles are all in subcats
  3. it will not simplify the maintenance of the category tree
However, it will do actual harm to both readers and editors:
  1. It will add clutter to the year and decade categories, such as Category:1275 and Category:1170s. We should be combin'ng more by-year topics under broad headings, instead of dumping them directly into the year category.
  2. It will remove navigational pathways: a reader looking at Category:Arts by year or Category:Arts by decade will no longer find a category for a whole bunch of years and decades for which we do have arts sub-cats. E.g. there is currently pathway: Arts by year → 1446 in the arts → 1446 in art / 1446 works
    The nominator's plan will destroy that pathway. In other words it breaks navigation.
    And no, please don't try claiming that there is an alternative pathway through Art by year] and Works by year. There are multiple sub-topics of Arts by year which have by-year subcats, not all of which exist for any given year: Animation by year, Art by year, Film by year, Music by year, Theatre by year, Works by year. if their by-year subcats are not in grouped in "YYYYY in the arts" categories, then a reader looking for arts topics in a given year will have to navigate each of those 6 container categories(or 5 if we exclude film,which wasn't a huge field in the middle ages). That's daft.
    And no, it doesn't help to say but they will all be in the "YYYY" category (e.g. Category:1496), because the YYYY category is a jumble of of other topics, within which the arts topic will randomly distributed among the rest.
  3. It will complicate category maintenance, by requiring editors to know which years and decades should have an "in the arts" category. When they go to create such a category, there is no warning that the category should not exist. There is no link they can follow for more info. There is no central repository of these ad hoc CFD decisions. So the result is repeatedly that these categories get re-created in a piecemeal fashion.
This all arises because the nominator's approaches these sets of chronology categories appears to be based on two mistaken ideas:
Mistaken idea 1
Static category trees
  • The nominator's approach might be viable (tho not necessarily desirable) if the category tree was static, so that whatever decision was made at CFD led to a new stable set which would persist until a new CFD discussion was held.
  • Any such assumption is false. New articles are being created all the time, and categorisation of existing articles is constantly improved, so categories are constantly being created and deleted. These CFD proposals are effectively unavailable to the editors doing the categorisation, because there is no practicable way to find them. So new categories get re-created contrary to the CFD decision. The result, which i have seen repeatedly, is that within a few years the effect of a CFD cull is not a neat cut-off point as Marcocapelle hopes, but the replacement of a coherent, complete set of categories with a patchwork. The intent may be good, but the effect is akin to vandalism.
Mistaken idea 2
Navigational tree
  • the nominator appears to approach these sets of categories as if they were part of a tree, in which pruning branches allow the rest to flourish. This is fundamentally wrong:the category system is more like a huge collection of intertwined trees, or in mathematical terms a partially ordered set.
  • City streets provide a useful two-dimensional analogy to the multi-dimensional category system. Regardless of whether the city is grid-based (like many North American cities) or has a road network which evolved over centuries, all cities share the same feature: for any two points A and B in opposing quadrants of the city, there are multiple routes from A to B.
    en.wp categories are similar; there are multiple pathways between two points. Which of those pathways makes most sense depends on what interests the reader is pursuing, and what questions they are asking. Cutting out some of those pathways reduces choice, and increases the risk that the readers' train of thought will not lead them down a path which brings them to their desired destination.
  • This misconception is akin to the devastation brought the British railway network by the Beeching cuts. Beeching had a notion that removing branch and interconnecting lines would improve overall efficiency. However, the result was precisely the opposite of what was intended: removing branch lines cut off many towns from the rail network, so people travelling to and from those towns took to the roads and stayed on the roads. Others found that although town X may still be connected by rail to town Y, the removal of connecting lines meant that now-available route was unfeasibly long.
Despite his boundless good faith and exceptional diligence, Marcocapelle's pursuit of these mistaken ideas has the untended adverse effect of making him the Dr Beeching of chronology categories. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it would break the category tree of the arts. Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply.
  1. The proposal does improve navigation, otherwise I would not have proposed it. In the path Gospels of Máel Brigte > Category:1138 in art > Category:1138 in the arts > Category:1138 > Category:1138 in Asia > 1138 Aleppo earthquake one category layer will be skipped when the proposal is implemented, which is exactly what I claimed in the nomination.
  2. Agree that it will not reduce category clutter on articles, I had not claimed it would.
  3. Agree that it will not simplify maintenance, I had not claimed it would.∞
  4. It will not add clutter to the year and decade categories because there is only one merge target. By the way, this is due to the fact that it concerns container categories, I am not claiming that this is a general phenomenon.
  5. About navigational pathways, with the proposal things are not going to change fundamentally compared to the current situation. You give an example for the year 1446, but in the current situation I can claim the same issue for the year 1076 (i.e. before 1138). The question is just which starting point is the most convenient and I think 1500 is a better starting point than the current starting point of 1138, for the reason that after 1500 the container categories become better populated.
  6. I am well aware that new articles are created all the time, so if in five years time it appears to be more convenient to start the tree in 1300 instead of in 1500, that would just be great.
  7. (reply to Dimadick) the proposal does not break the tree, it only moves the starting point of the tree.
Thanks for reading. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Marcocapelle. Sorry, but that's all completely unconvincing. I will take each of those points in turn:
  1. The proposal does improve navigation, otherwise I would not have proposed it. In the path Gospels of Máel Brigte > Category:1138 in art > Category:1138 in the arts > Category:1138 > Category:1138 in Asia > 1138 Aleppo earthquake one category layer will be skipped when the proposal is implemented, which is exactly what I claimed in the nomination.
    • I did not suggest that there was any intendtion to impede navigation, merely that the nomination is mistaken about the effect. That bizarre cherry-picked example of two unrelated articles is irrelevant: it is exceptionally unlikely that anyone would want to navigate from an Irish religious work to an earthquake in Syria.
  2. Agree that it will not reduce category clutter on articles, I had not claimed it would.
    • So we agree: no benefit
  3. Agree that it will not simplify maintenance, I had not claimed it would.
    • So we agree: no benefit
  4. It will not add clutter to the year and decade categories because there is only one merge target. By the way, this is due to the fact that it concerns container categories, I am not claiming that this is a general phenomenon.
    • Again, this is mistaken, based on a misreading of my point 1#: It will add clutter to the year and decade categories, such as Category:1275 and Category:1170s. Marcocapelle appear to have misread that as referring to clutter on the categories which will be merged into those year and decade categories.
      Multiple items will be added to each year category (e.g. Category:1446), which increases the jumble of random topics in that category. It's already a logical mishmash; this would make it even more so.
  5. About navigational pathways, with the proposal things are not going to change fundamentally compared to the current situation. You give an example for the year 1446, but in the current situation I can claim the same issue for the year 1076 (i.e. before 1138). The question is just which starting point is the most convenient and I think 1500 is a better starting point than the current starting point of 1138, for the reason that after 1500 the container categories become better populated.
    • It always possible to claim of any merge that it's not fundamental, so that word tells us nothing. But in this case the proposal is a fundamental change: in an era (1000–15000 when we do have by by-year categories for a range of arts topics, Marcocapelle proposes to remove the container category which links them all. That is a significant disruption to navigation of arts topics, which in no way offset by Marcocapelle's bizarrely cherrypicked example of the supposed slightly shorter path between an Irish religious work and an earthquake in Syria.
  6. I am well aware that new articles are created all the time, so if in five years time it appears to be more convenient to start the tree in 1300 instead of in 1500, that would just be great.
    • That appears to entirely ignore the explanation which I gave in my point #3: that categories are not a static set which can be revisited every five years: It fails by requiring editors to know which years and decades should have an "in the arts" category. When they go to create such a category, there is no warning that the category should not exist. There is no link they can follow for more info. There is no central repository of these ad hoc CFD decisions. So the result is repeatedly that these categories get re-created in a piecemeal fashion.
      Revisiting this in five years means that we get five years of piecemeal creation of new categories of the type which this proposal would merge. I do a lot of work on these series of chronology categories, and I regularly find series where this happened after one of these pointless attempts to flatten the category tree. Marcocapelle doesn't even try to suggest a remedy for this.
  7. (reply to Dimadick) the proposal does not break the tree, it only moves the starting point of the tree.
    • That is simply wrong. Dimadick is right, because the topical subcats of Arts by year begin at 1000. Marcocapelle's proposal will break the tree by removing part of the layer which links them.
Sorry this is long, but rebutting these misconceptions about a complex issue is not simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to BrownHairedGirl. Sorry, but that's equally unconvincing. I will take each of those points in turn:
  • That bizarre cherry-picked example of two unrelated articles is irrelevant: it is exceptionally unlikely that anyone would want to navigate from an Irish religious work to an earthquake in Syria. The whole point of Category:1138 and other time-based categories to exist is that it allows people to navigate between articles in the same time frame. It is not up to you or to me to say that navigating between articles in the same time frame is a stupid idea.
  • Marcocapelle appear to have misread that as referring to clutter on the categories which will be merged into those year and decade categories.
    Multiple items will be added to each year category (e.g. Category:1446), which increases the jumble of random topics in that category.     That is simply not what this nomination is about. In the nomination, every nominated category is replaced by one other category.
  • It always possible to claim of any merge that it's not fundamental, so that word tells us nothing. But in this case the proposal is a fundamental change: in an era (1000–15000 when we do have by by-year categories for a range of arts topics, Marcocapelle proposes to remove the container category which links them all. This is just very confusing. The decades start in 1000, the years start in 1138. I was assuming you were discussing years. Do you want to discuss decades? Fine, in the current situation, the 970s decade suffers from the same problem, there is no Category:970s in the arts to navigate to Category:970s works. We can also discuss centuries if you wish. The point remains: any starting point is arbitrary.
  • So the result is repeatedly that these categories get re-created in a piecemeal fashion. Marcocapelle doesn't even try to suggest a remedy for this. It is already being created in a piecemeal fashion, see the starting year of 1138. The remedy is CfD, like now. By the way, if you are okay with recreation in a piecemeal fashion then you don't have to take it to CfD, just leave it to others.
-- Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time that @Marcocapelle has completely missed my point about clutter. I repeatedly explained was talking about the number of sub-categories of a year or category, i,e. Category:YYYY or Category:YYY0s ... but Marcocapelle persists in replying about a different form of clutter, namely the number of parent categories of Category:YYYY in art etc. I am not going to repost my lengthy explanations, but I urge Marcocapelle to take time to actually read what aii have already written.
As to the point about the when the years and decades start, the tree may not be completely filled in, but they start from about 1000.
And no, I am not OK with recreation in a piecemeal fashion. My point is that it does inevitably happen, and it happens because good faith editors don't know these arbitrary cut-offs, and the result of piecemeal creation an impediment to navigation which doesn't exist with a consistent set of year and decade categories. I explained all this at length, twice, but Marcocapelle continues to ignore the explanation. It's frustrating to see an experienced category editor simply ploughing on and completely ignoring the real-world consequences of their proposals as reported by someone who actually does a huge chunk of the maintenance on these categories.
.And "leave it to others" to take them to CFD is no solution, because that doesn't happen. I guess editors are not willing to devote their time to policing the unnecessary make-work created by this weird obsession with flattening the category tree.
And even more bizarrely, Marcocapelle still seems to think that there is some strategic relevance to bizzarely cherry-picked example of the path from an Irish religious work to an earthquake in Syria. weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support most -- I think 16th to 18th and 21st century should be kept, as there ought to be sufficient content, or at least they should be the subject of a separate discussion later. These are typical cases of twig categories, with one article at the end of a long thread of one-item categories, something we should discourage. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron entirely misses what is proposed here. This is not a proposal to remove twigs; it's a proposal to remove the trunk, i.e. the container categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I've skimmed the Marco/BHG discussions above and I'm not seeing a convincing case for change. For simplicity we should try to have a category structure that is consistent across time periods - this CFD would break that (e.g. it wouldn't delete Category:6th century BC in the arts). I suggest Marcocapelle write an essay explaining how this part of the category structure currently works and how/why he thinks it should be changed. Get that accepted by a wikiproject and that'll be something that can be referred to (and refined) in the future. DexDor (talk) 12:18, 8 November 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:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam[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) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: HighBeam shut down in late 2018. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Since Highbeam is more, the number of editors with access to it is zero, so the category should be empty... and hence should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 27 September 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_September_27&oldid=1073192750"