Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 8 May 10 >

May 9[edit]

Category:Eldest sons of barons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Category:Eldest sons of barons

Category:CSI franchise articles needing expert attention[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. (No merge was required because the categories were empty.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main TV category, Category:Television articles needing expert attention has only 22 articles needing attention. There doesn't seem to be a real need to split this even more. Gonnym (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (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:People from Aspinwall, Pennsylvania[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now per RevelationDirect. I managed to get it up to three articles, but that's still not enough. Grutness...wha? 13:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment@Grutness: Going to school somewhere doesn't automatically make a person from that place. Consesnsus[1] is, going to school in Foo doesn't qualify someone for inclusion in Foo's Notable people's section. The two entries you added are people whose articles only mention Aspinwall as where they go to school....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, ...William, you're obviously wrong with your interpretation of Grutness's two new entries. I've looked it up. Katherine Oppenheimer lived from her 3th year of age in Aspinwall. And the other, the sports man article indeed tells only about high school visit in A. But no word of being a boarding school. So he certainly comes from there, knows the borough (3-4000 inhabitants) well. Enough evidence IMHO to accept him as well as "People from Aspinwall". Regrettably three is still not enough, yet Kudos! to Grutness who successfully has dug deep to find those two whereas the borough is quite small indeed. --Just N. (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yeah, I only add high school if it's pretty clear that the person was a resident in the town for a significant time. The search wasn't completey fruitless - I now know that Aspinwall is also the former name of Colón, Panama! Grutness...wha? 02:39, 11 May 2021 (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:Nazi-appropriated items[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) 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not think this category is useful. "Items" is vague, as is shown by the set of articles that were added to it. I have depopulated it, but it contained:
Further, it's a slippery-slope: will we now have categories about every cultural, social, political and artistic "item" that one culture "appropriated" from another? Who decides what has been appropriated and from whom? Will each entry to each of these new categories need to be sourced? If we accept this, we're setting ourselves up for a gigantic mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFD Procedure @Beyond My Ken: I've emptied categories and listed the contents here a handful of times when I thought there was a clear libel issue. In general though, CFD participants prefer categories to be left as is. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I believe this is my first category nomination. In any case, I'm definitely a CFD newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge is that appropriated vs reclaimed is more of a continuum that varies by context. See this earlier discussion on Category:Reclaimed words for background. - RevelationDirect (talk)
  • Note: The above editor is the creator of the nominated category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2021 (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:Shambhala lineage[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't the line of vision complementary? Lineage talks about the past /legacy while vision about the future /efforts to reach achievements? How could that be just the same and unified in only one category? --Just N. (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vision was developed at the start of the lineage and is still its core. The lineage category contains a successor of Chögyam Trungpa who developed the Shambala vision. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2021 (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:Shambhala monasteries and temples[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2021 (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:Shambhala Publications[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2021 (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:Shambhala Publications books[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize books by publisher. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I have never seen a book article categorized by publisher so far, but apparently we do have a tree for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2021 (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:Municipal Poets Laureate in the United States[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, mainly because it holds the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING as heck. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you also want to nominate the subcategories? Or if not, then you probably mean "containerize" instead of "delete"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. No point in deleting the parent category while leaving the children in place. That just makes the subcats hard to find. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Nominated So long as we have all these subcats, we need this parent cat. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you object against artist/poet support measures by US municipalities? Those "Poets in Residence" are a win/win for both sides. And a part of defining for both I do see in it, so the category seems okay. OTOH I'm afraid it could become masses of them for some poets. --Just N. (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I really think this whole tree needs to be ousted, especially Cateogry:Poet Laureates of Vallejo. My mom used to live in Vallejo, so I know it is an insignificant minor city within the much greater San Francisco-Oakland-Richmond metro complex. However what needs to go is the categorizing of people by these non-notable recgonitions from cities that violate the principle of overcategorization by award. Removing the parent while the child cats exist makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (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:Wales AMs 2021–[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 to proceed, though the opposition was more procedural than substantive, so a broader follow-up nomination may well succeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Members of the Welsh Parliament have been styled as Members of the Senedd (MS) since May 2020. Though they were known as AMs for 80% of the previous electoral term, they are definitely now MSs and likely to remain so for they foreseeable future. The current term is currently expected to run until May 2026. Sionk (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Either do this consistently, or don't do it.
The change happened in May 2020, so the members in the previous category were know for their last year in office as Members of the Senedd (MS), and per WP:NAMECHANGES we should use the more recent name.
If @Sionk wants to cherrypick policy and not apply WP:NAMECHANGES, then let's just keep things simple and retain a consistent of titles for all six subcats of Category:Members of Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament by term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand this obstruction. If you think other categories should be renamed, you're welcome to propose that. BTW WP:NAMECHANGES refers to articles, rather than historically specific categories etc. Sionk (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk, my objection is based on the principle of consistency. I see no reason to apply a different principle to name changes in a historical category of Members of the Senedd than would be applied to naming an article-space list of the same set. If you oppose applying std naming principles, then its simpler to just keep consistency.
I made this point in outline in our discussion on my talk (permalink), but for some reason you were in a rush to go to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Some things are simpler, but not accurate. I am simply proposing a category name change here. Sionk (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree change. They are MSs not AMs. Previously though between 1999 and 2020 they we're called AMs, and there is no legal basis to change the name of other cats. But definitely this cat needs to change to Wales MSs 2021–2026.Cwmcafit (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cwmcafit: The legal basis is that 2016-2021 members were called AMs for 4 years, and MSs for their last year. Whichever term we choose is wrong for part of the term, so per WP:NAMECHANGES we should use the more recent term. This nomination disruptively fails to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But are we talking about members elected most recently here for this category (the sixth Senedd)? I can't see anything wrong with @Sionk proposal to change the name of this specific category. Cwmcafit (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the date, I've seen this issue in a few categories. Per MOS:TOPRESENT, the end date should not be left empty. --Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't noticed that guidance before. I am surprised to find that it is already used for several current categories within Legislators by term. The UK, India (with its many states), Ghana and Greece are currently not compliant, but I can't object to using the closing year. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I suppose User:BrownHairedGirl's objection can easily be addressed by adding the previous term to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory, @Marcocapelle. But I raised that in the our discussion on my talk (permalink), and Sionk objected.
      So the reason I haven't added the preceding category to this nomination is that I don't have the stomach for a procedural wrangle over whether the other cat should be added. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had no expectations of this particular category change being controversial. Adding another category to the discussion would have created even more points of disagreement so I avoided that (I initially thought BHG had created the category in good faith, having been unaware Welsh members of parliament were now known as MSs). Though Peterkingiron has thrown another spanner into the works by disagreeing with MOS:TOPRESENT, so I dispair. Sionk (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sionk, it's part of a series, so it was inevitable that it name would be considered a part of a series per WP:CONSISTENT. Given that this point about consistency was raised with you in discussion before CFD, it is very surprising that you now claim that you had no expectations of this particular category change being controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, your quoting guidance about articles not categories. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the contrary, @Sionk, consistency in category titles is such a key and long-established principle that there is a speedy criterion to uphold it: WP:C2C. A large part of the busy WP:CFDS page is C2C renamings. (I have been doing this category thing intensively for fifteen years, so I know the ropes pretty well). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
              • If this closes as no consensus, a fresh nomination with the both categories would be a fair next step, as there is better consensus to be expected when nominated together. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree with Marcocapelle. That's how it should have been done in the first place, ideally as an Option A/Option B proposal to allow editors a clear choice between renaming both categories or only the most recent. When prior discussion shows different views, consensus formation is impeded by a hasty nomination which offers only one of those options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
                  • Not hasty at all. I intentionally made this nomination because, after initial discussion with you, it seemed we would not agree on the treatment of the other categories. Please assume good faith. Sionk (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change to Category:Wales MSs 2021–. Yes the next election is due in 2026, but we habitually leave that open and only change it when the final session closes and the election is called. We should certainly not change previous categories as this would be anachronistic. We do not need a second category for the members 2016-21, despite the change of name. that can be dealt with in a headnote, possibly with a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2021 (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:Members of The Archaeology Club[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) 02:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
The The Archaeology Club was in New York City in the 1950s and I'm unclear if it was a formal organization or a loose association. 5 of the 7 articles in this category make no mention of the association while the Frances Follin Jones and Frances Follin Jones articles not only mention the organization but list the other members and may be the basis for this category. If this organization is notable, creating a main article with a list would be a better approach than this non-defining category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For some reasons. It's a local weekly science support meeting so more than just membership. But there could be lots of Clubs with the same name in all academic sites with archaeology. And all academics would be members of lots of similar associations for reasons of professional career and development promoting. We can't allow so many categories w/o special impacts. --Just N. (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Whatever it was, being a member is NN. At most listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2021 (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:Companies with works councils[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) 04:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT
A works council is a form of corporate governance to ensure input from labor and and management which is legally required for most large companies in Germany. Not surprisingly, most of the articles here are large German companies like Deutsche Telekom, Volkswagen Group, and ZF Sachs. (Inexplicably, Google and SoundCloud are also in this category but those articles offer no clue as to why.) I don't think this would work as a list becasue, if fully expanded, it would significantly overlap with Category:Companies of Germany. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listifying American companies only could be an option. It is legally required for large companies in multiple European countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A number of articles are out there about how a German-style work council at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would violate US labor prohibitions against a company union unless an independent labor/trade union was involved (example) so I'm not sure if an American list is possible. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Also I found that Google has a European works council so having Google in an American list would be inaccurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Works councils are common in some European countries but not all. There are companies/corporations that are activiley struggling to prevent the founding of local works councils even against the law. No, it's not a strict duty in Germany to have works councils in companies. Some industrial or trade branches like fast food gastronomy, supermarkets or software engineering tend to have no works councils traditions. So RevelationDirect is wrong to hypothesize a huge overlap. No, it is indeed an interesting information which companies/corporations support works councils internationally. Categories that help to get overview are necessary and reasonable. This category is useful! And maybe "by country" sub cats are a good thing indeed. --Just N. (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask? I really see no need to do so. To make such ivestigations per internet is time-consuming and IMHO no fun at all. So if you want the details: do it yourself! Just some hints I can give you as starting points: SAP the largest German company by market capitalisation and Aldi. The latter has built the corporation as a collection of smaller companies which hire the working staff so Divide and rule is easier and no working council at the corporation top level is possible. Both corporations have had lots of smaller inner conflicts in the media news over the years. American corporations like Amazon and McDonalds have been notorious as union busters and working council preventers at many company locations. Well, it's not my working field, so I'm not in the details. Help yourself if you need. -- Last not least: please stop pinging me; I usually don't like it except in emergency cases.--Just N. (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting case is companies that hire primarily limited/short term contract employees, so while they're eligible for forming works councils, high turnover rates and new elections due to varying bargaining units makes maintaining a stable works council a challenge. German brand Lieferando is an example of this. Shushugah (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAP SE Official company document on SAP SE's Works Council right here.
  • Aldi News article on Aldi's Works Council right here. (Admittedly that article shows that Works Council picketing the store but it still exists.)
  • Lieferando Now called "Just Eat Takeaway" after merger. Article about having to consult with Works Council prior to that merger right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criteria for a works council is more nuanced and varies country to country and also company size. SoundCloud operated for over 14 years without a works council. It’s true that nearly all SE corporations have European Works Council but we wouldn’t add the category without some citations in the text, with specific info like the year it was established etc… and adding subcategories for individual countries/entities does sound like a good idea.
If someone saw the categories and decided that Google shouldn’t be included because the Google article lacks info, they’d be in the right. That’s not an issue with the category itself though. Shushugah (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If having a works council would be a defining characteristic then all companies having a works council should have mentioned that in reliable sources and in the article. As most companies don't have that, it does not concern a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if not all companies in Europe have a works council, it doesn't seem to be WP:DEFINING and WP:OVERLAPCAT is a real concern if this were fully populated. (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as part of the post WWII settlement German companies (perhaps if above a certain size) were required to have a works council as well as a board of directors. This should thus be duplicating German companies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too common in some areas to be even close to defining. The overlap concerns mean we should not have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2021 (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/2021_May_9&oldid=1030178485"