Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29

[edit]

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent

[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. This should not be brought forward again unless it is part of a nomination of all categories of fictional characters by descent. In the meantime, it might be helpful to build a visible hierarchy of those categories. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained by @Marcocapelle at this CfD, it is a non-defining characteristic often not mentioned in the article. I agree that is is a WP:TRIVIALCAT, and this detail is usually so minor that it is possibly OR. The same rationale could be applied to other categories for fictional characters by descent. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Picking on the Irish is particularly invidious, because Ireland has exported people on a huge scale since the 1840s, so the Irish diaspora massively outnumbers the population of Ireland. Fictional portrayals of the Irish disapora are a significant topic of academic study: see e.g. JSTOR search and Gscholar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, and purely part of an author's/creator's whim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing real people by the ethnicity/nationality of their great-grandparents (I've seen at least 5 descent cats in some articles) is bad enough and categorizing fictional people in this way is even worse. It's very WP:DNWAUC. It could be argued that this should be an upmerge rather than a straight delete but the pages I looked at (example) are in so many other categories that this is probably unnecessay. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some ancestries are more defining in fiction than others. This one is not in most cases defining and not worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak to all of these, because I haven't comprehensively analyzed the content of every category in this batch — I can only speak to Category:Fictional Canadian people of Irish descent‎, which is a very definite delete. Ethnic ancestry is not routinely WP:DEFINING of all fictional characters — it's legitimately defining if the work is specifically about that, but not if it's merely an informed attribute about a character whose story arc isn't directly related to their ethnicity. (For example, if a novel is specifically about an Irish immigrant moving to a new country and facing anti-Irish prejudices there, then Irish ancestry is certainly defining — but if the work isn't about the person's Irishness per se, then it's not automatically a defining characteristic just because the person's surname happens to be Doyle. Which brings me to why the Canadian one's a delete: the only entry in there is the television drama series Republic of Doyle — and not a character biography, but the show itself. But the show was not about Jake Doyle's Irishness in any substantive or defining way, so it does not warrant categorization as such — and even if the show had been about that, the category would still belong on Jake Doyle as a person and not on the work he was in. So Canada's an outright delete — some of the others may potentially be keepable, if there are enough characters left after they're pruned for improper entries comparable to Republic of Doyle, but may also be deletable if there aren't. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (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:Misha Arobelidze

[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) 04:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - this category is unlikely to get any larger Nthep (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (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:Orders, decorations, and medals

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps a more suitable wording for the scope. More in accordance with main article order (distinction), in turn named so for WP:NPOV reasons, with "distinction" deemed more neutral in relation to the bestower than the aesthetical value implied in the term "decoration". For a concrete example of the latter, consider this and this. While not sure if precisely "Orders, medals, and other distinctions" would be the optimal wording, other proposals are welcome. Perhaps even simply Category:Phaleristics would do (with subcategories Category:Phaleristics in X land, etc.). In any case, a discussion about the preexisting wording would be welcome - particularly regarding the term "decoration". In accordance with the result of a discussion, perhaps also a Wikipedia:DISTINCTIONS naming convention and style notice could be established. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support initial proposal. I think, for the sake of readers, "Phaleristics" might be a little too much of a half-dollar word for many, and should perhaps be reserved as a parent and for items relating to the general history of awards, medal collecting, and the like. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common usage. Gbooks gives:
  1. 6 hits for "Orders, medals, and other distinctions"
  2. ~330 hits for "Orders, decorations, and medals"
Better to use the commonly accepted terminology than some Wiki-neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 13 April 2018 (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:Procurement practices

[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. The category currently has only two other specific sub-categories, not 30 as mentioned by the editor who objected, and he has not replied to the nominator's point about inclusion criteria. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WikiProject Business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (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:Peers by year

[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. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because the contents are all Lists of peers by decade BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2018 (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:Universal Deluxe Editions

[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. xplicit 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A lot of albums are re-released when they reach significant anniversaries or achievement but the re-release as a "special edition" is not a defining aspect of the album itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:13, 29 March 2018 (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.