Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20[edit]

Category:Miss Teen USA 1990 delegates[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: dual merge also to Category:1990 beauty pageant contestants, as I believe that is a more standard naming format. Rather than empty Category:20th-century Miss Teen USA delegates by year and Category:21st-century Miss Teen USA delegates by year, which have not been nominated, I will rename those to Category:20th-century Miss Teen USA delegates and Category:21st-century Miss Teen USA delegates and merge to those rather than Category:Miss Teen USA delegates, as there already exists a fledgling category hierarchy for pageant contestants by century. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:PERFCAT. User:Namiba 19:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and am neutral on deleting vs. merging. I nominated for merging because I see being a delegate in itself as potentially defining but not being a delegate in a specific year.--User:Namiba 14:54, 23 November 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:Sonthi Boonyaratglin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Category:Sonthi Boonyaratglin

Category:Meta Platforms applications[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. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The Facebook, Instagram, Messenger (software) and WhatsApp articles all define the topic as a "service", not an "application". feminist (+) 15:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is NOT defining what a marketing divison of a corporation says about it! We are not assistant hands of Zuckerberg's wishes. --Just N. (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. 'Service' is preferable. Oculi (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for consistency with the articles that use "app" or "application". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 21 November 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:School shootings committed by teenagers[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 without prejudice to a fresh discussion solely focusing on Peterkingiron's alternative (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization; overlap of Category:School shootings committed by adults and Category:School shootings committed by minors. 1857a (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment -- The age of majority varies between countries, possibly even between US States. A better distinction might be between those committed by students (current or possibly also recent) and those committed by others. The minors category might be defined in this basis. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Peterkingiron's reclassification. Student/outsider is a much more meaningful distinction IMO. Grutness...wha? 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

' 'Delete per nom. The two existing cats are convincing! --Just N. (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No point in having a category that overlaps the two age groups. Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 01:58, 21 November 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:Welsh people of African descent[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: double merge as listed and to Category:Welsh people of African descent. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: no actual articles Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article in each Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are only 2 Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC) These can all be merged into Category:Welsh people of African descent. Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, don't see why these should be merged. I also think this also has wider ramifications to other ethnicity categories for other nationalities.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - these should be merged because they have too few articles. Ethan Ampadu is in a ridiculous number of these needless categories and would probably be in more if we had more info on all 4 of his grand-parents, or his 8 great grandparents. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I presume Welshness in these people consists in living in Wales, rather than having Welsh descent or speaking Welsh (at least as mother tongue). Welsh is not a nationality; we (in UK) are all British. We probably move between home countries less than Americans between states, but it would be difficult to provide a robust NPOV for being Welsh. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, many of these are sportspeople who represent Wales internatinoally, and not Great Britain or England. And what's the argument for merging these, and then keeping separate one's for England and Scottish categories? And what's the threshold for merging then, 1 or 2 entries? And where is that documented? Also coincidence that these are all African categories, why not list all Welsh ethnicity categories if that's the case, since most of them only have 1 or 2 entries.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double merge per nom, with no prejudice against re-creation if they reach a sensible size. Grutness...wha? 02:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we're going to do this then we need to get rid of all the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish categories, since they're all British. If not, then leave these category trees well alone. Being part of an established category tree is a good reason to keep no matter the size of the category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We generally want to see 5 articles in a category. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's a functional or actual rule.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
While there is a clear majority in favour of merging, the concern of the opposition that this is a case of the "smallcat exception rule" has not been addressed yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • (Voted above) I still say merge. The criterion for qualifying to play for Wales involve a relatively slender connection with that country. We might merge also (where appropriate) to Category:Sportspeople for Wales of African descent. I found one non-sportsperson, which named two other (descent) countries but did not mention Wales. This is about small categories. If there are 5 sportspeople from one village, that could provide a viable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I still say don't merge. There's dozens of other Welsh ethnicity categories that have low amounts of entries, and aren't listed here. Not sure why we are singling out African ethnicities instead of making it comprehensive including European/Asian/American descent. And if we make this move, then we must for Northern Irish/English/Scottish/British Island ethnicity categories. A move like this should be a part of a larger category discussion, this seems too pointed and limited.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a question of principle. Its pragmatic. There certainly are plenty of other descent categories too small to be viable which should be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's anything but pragmatic. There's no logical reason to target these categories in particular. A wider discussion about these sort of categories is required, since there are so many that are like this and are not listed.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having five articles is a well-established criterion. The normal outcome for smaller categories is to upmerge to some or all parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen verification of this criterion, and even if it applies why specifically upmerge"Welsh persons of African descent"? Nearly all "Welsh people of X descent" articles have less than 5 articles, and aren't nominated here. Make this more comprehensive then.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:00, 30 November 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.

Works by people not currently known to be notable[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 and besides it may not have been a great idea to bundle these categories (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nominating a very small subset of the categories that collect works by people for whom there are not yet Wikipedia articles. I reject the notion that every taxon should be in a category for its namer(s), every book, song or album in a category for its writer(s) and anyone else who had something to do with its production: you get the picture. And of course WP:SMALLCAT appears to apply in the taxa cases as well, though without an article, who knows? It certainly DOES make sense to categorize works where their creator is notable, and our best available indication of this would be if they have a WP article, and certainly no objection to recreating any deleted category once someone writes an article on their creator. If consensus is to delete these, I will nominate the remaining ones. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - we categorise articles by defining characteristics, and the author of a book or the writer of a song is the paramount defining characteristic thereof. I would concede that the person who names a taxa or produces an album might well fail this test. Oculi (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree: I think the year a book or song came out, its genre, its language, its country of origin, all come way ahead of its author or writer as defining characteristics, and the many thousands of books/songs NOT categorized by author/writer would seem to support that thinking. UnitedStatesian (talk)
  • Keep, and your header is incorrect. "Having no Wikipedia article" ≠ "currently not notable". These are quite likely to be notable people that no editor has got round to writing about - in fact, given the proposed categories, there is evidence of some notability in all cases. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point on the header, which I have changed to clarify. But I was under the impression that notability was not inherited, and so there were likely (for example) to be many, many notable books written by non-notable authors. Am I mistaken? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken, but if a person writers several books which are notable, it's unlikely that their writer wouldn't be notable themselves. "Notinherited" works more in the other direction in creative fields - a notable person can write non-notable books, but if the books are notable the writer is likely notable because of it. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this E. J. Graff, whom ever he/she is, (no way to know, of course) appears to have only written one book. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Came for the taxa, now I'm commenting on notability. She, Graff, (is google cheating?) has written two books and is an editor at WaPo. ~ cygnis insignis 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Categories have notability criteria? What are they, specifically? I imagine it isn't supposed to be transitive. --awkwafaba (📥) 00:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that the categories aren't notable, just that they are categories of works by possibly non-notable people. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, at least as far as books go. (I have no opinion on taxa or music). If every author had a category, that would produce hundreds of thousands of categories of very limited utility. In general, a category for works by a specific individual will be redundant to the list of works on their own biography or their standalone works article. A category seems useful mostly in cases where an author is prolific and has a long biography, eg, Shakespeare or Charles Dickens. In such cases readers may reasonably wish to skip between works without bothering with the author info. However, this use case would only rarely apply. There will surely be disagreement about where to draw the line between “Shakespeare” and “a real nobody”. I would personally put the bar for a category pretty close to the “Shakespeare” side of the scale. But I think authors without articles are pretty much as far as you can go on the “nobody” side. Even if they merit articles (and I don’t think every author of a notable book is notable themselves), until the bio articles exist, it seems hard to justify prioritizing them in the infrastructure. Authors with such limited Wikipedia presence that they don’t even have articles (whether or not such articles would be justified) strike me as presenting very little motivation for the clutter-clearing superstructure of a category. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument would seem to amount to keeping categories when they're unnecessary, and deleting them when they're the only navigational aid available. That doesn't seem to be the best way to serve the reader. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep books if the categories can be populated by more than one article. Weak keep songs in the same manner. Delete taxa and albums. The author of a book is clearly a defining characteristic, and it is appropriate to categorise multiple notable books by the same author together to aid navigation, even when the author lacks an article. The same applies to songs, to a lesser degree. I can't see the same being the case for describers of organisms or producers of albums. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - i still don’t see what guidelines govern notability of categories, but the arguments for deletion as a group seem pretty weak. Some may have other issues like size, but there’s no guilt by association. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Albums produced by Stephen Lironi, at least... these shouldn't have been bundled together, because as already pointed out, no article (yet) does not mean not notable, and I think there's enough material out there to create an article for Stephen Lironi, if anyone bothers one day... there are sources about his role as a producer [1], [2], he's received a Grammy nomination [3], and as a former member of Altered Images in the early 1980s, there is probably coverage in the music press of the time of his previous career as a bona fide pop star. Richard3120 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_20&oldid=1062503200"