Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2

[edit]

Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast

[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 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently only one article and the category can realistically only ever contain max 2 articles (the other being Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-argument. This category has been designed to contain the lists of monuments and memorials for each city/town of Samara Oblast in the future. Here is the list of administrative divisions of the region. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the mentioned cities, there are another two settlements with more than 100.000 population. Anyway, in my opinion, it’d be better to keep the special category for appropriate articles than merge it to a broader-scope category and make it messier.
P.S. I’m currently organizing the articles within the Category:Lists of monuments and memorials to help us reach them at least by country. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (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 Twilight Zone Guest Appearances

[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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This fails WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: ... not to mention that it violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE (a person is not an appearance) and WP:CAPS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror. These are just examples; it could also be something much better. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:42, 3 January 2019 (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:Egyptian Premier League footballers

[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 per nom. There is a clear consensus that this should be "players", not "footballers". The arguments for renaming this to "Players in the Egyptian Premier League" to avoid ambiguity are not without merit, but they have been countered by arguments that the wider category tree treats similar categories as the nominator suggested. No prejudice against a wider nomination of all potentially ambiguous categories involving national-specific "Premier Leagues". ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Footballers isn't the correct word to use here. Most of the "league players" categories like this one, if not all of them, ends with "players". For example, We have Category:Premier League players, Category:Bundesliga players, Category:Qatar Stars League players, and many other examples; and because of that I believe that this one should match rest of the categories. Ben5218 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Despite it might actually sounds ambiguous, but most other league with the name "Premier League" has a category with the same name. For example, we have Category:Ukrainian Premier League players, Category:Armenian Premier League players, Category:Kenyan Premier League players and Category:Israeli Premier League players. I believe that Egyptian Premier League players is the most suitable name for this category to match the league's article title, and to use the same naming system that all other leagues use. Ben5218 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: But that won't match the naming system all other leagues use. Plus, there are already some categories with a similar name like the ones I mentioned above. Don't you think that it would be better if this category's name is changed the naming system all other leagues use? Ben5218 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should rename all those other categories as well. We need precesion in naming categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It rather the naming of the whole system. The Serie A had namesake basketball (and other sport) competition in native language, while in English language the football competition certainly is the primary topic, so that Serie A players is reasonable naming without much assumed knowledge to other reader. For club, any club ending with FC, either association football or other rule football, "Category:foo FC players" is a reasonable naming due to the FC. It may applies to FK, AC, CF (despite CF in Italian can stand for women's football, which differ from Spanish CF = FC) for assumed knowledge on the meaning of the affix . The naming of "Category:foo league players" actually require assumed knowledge one by one which sport the league was. Matthew hk (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2019 (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:Japanese-Canadian internment

[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: Renamed to Category:Internment of Japanese Canadians. WP:C2D does not seem to apply here. Miniapolis 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not the internment that is Japanese-Canadian, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (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:Asian-American novels

[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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Asian-American_novels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (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.

Commons category tracking

[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. Tracking categories now empty because tracking has been restructured looks to me like a WP:G6 issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These three tracking categories can be deleted as they have been replaced by a new set of tracking categories, see Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories, and the related discussion at Template_talk:Commons_category#Please_test_a_new_version_of_this_template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2019 (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:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones

[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/2019 February 25#Category:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones. ~ Rob13Talk 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created when capacitive touchscreen was a novelty. Now this is expected from any touchscreen device and would require all phones created in the last two decades to be included if we aimed to be complete. uKER (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2019 (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:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas

[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: listify. ~ Rob13Talk 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not fit into any wider battles-won-by category scheme (in fact, this category currently has no parents). Battles are already categorized by date/location/war etc (and various combinations of those) so this categorization is unnecessary. Many battles don't have a clear winner so this isn't a good way to categorize. If anyone thinks we should categorize (all) battles by winner (and loser?) then that should be discussed at WP:MILHIST first. The category could be listified.
If this is not deleted then it should be renamed to use a lower case "i" in indigenous peoples of the Americas and parented. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Hello, I created this category. I am all for converting it into a list and also agree with the capitalization change. I created this list because I think it is of high importance.
Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So if we have a battle where the Aztecs defeated the Tlaxcalas, it goes here right? What about a battle where Briths and Iroquois fought French and Potawatomi? This is a very, very problematic way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I think we should delete the category and replace it with a list (note, I created this category but I am a very casual contributor and in retrospective it was a bad idea) Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2019 (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:Radom Confederation

[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 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only an eponymous article that is already in Category:Polish confederations. The subcategory should be kept but does not need this category as a parent, especially not because there is a direct link to the Radom Confederation article in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (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.

Churches by city (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 per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 (Roman Catholic) subcategory. There is only one merge target, because the content of every category is already categorized in a Roman Catholic churches category of a region. For example, the article in Category:Churches in Alcoy is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Valencian Community. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but permit re-creation if lots of Protestant churches suddenly start being constructed in Spain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue is not that there are not any non-Catholic Churches in these places. The issue is that by and large these non-Catholic churches are in general not notable. The vast majority of churches are not notable. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prbaobly has over 10,000 Church buildings, of which I would doubt 100 are notable. The same applies for many Evangelical and Baptists Churches, although not quite to as high an extent. In the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this is partly because so much of the worship of the Church is focused on the 161 temples of the church, which are notable. In the case of the unnumbered but probably in excess of 100,000 Pentecostal churches worldwide, it is because so many of them are small congregations numbering in the tens in congregant count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All Per nom and JPL's comments above. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and the comments above. Ben5218 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2019 (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:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map

[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 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by articles that have had an external link showing a map of connecting buses in the area. There are endless ways public transport infrastructure articles can be categorised by, but usually it is kept to a fairly high level; Stations in Sydney, Wharves opened in 1923 etc. This category is doing so by features of the article, rather than features of the subject matter, so really an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. JCN217 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2019 (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:X86 Supercomputers

[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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Categorization#General conventions, regular nouns are not capitalized. 99Electrons (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League academics

[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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of its members per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and educational affiliation. General Ization Talk 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/WP:CATDEF Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League, the university system of the US, and its historical exclusion of the African-American in not just attendance/matriculation, but in academic study, research and value: (Columbia University JUST literally a few weeks decided to create a department for African and African-American studies, thus opening up a whole new field, industry, research and jobs for this particular group, African-American academics at the Ivy League). Plus with the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race), it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. LumaNatic (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? LumaNatic (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:African-American academics. Category:Ivy League academics is dubious, as is Category:African-American Ivy League alumni. Oculi (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS categories. The two suggested upmerge categories should in no case have any direct content. Academics are connected with a specific school, not an athletic league (that is what the Ivy League is), and should be categorized at Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:Dartmouth College factulty etc. Beyond that, academics should be categorized by their specific field of expertise, and should only in such cases be in ERGS categories if say Category:African-American historians or Category:African-American physicists is justified by the specific ERGS guidelines. In fields where ERGS guidelines do not justify an African-American sub-cat, we should not put people in an undifferentiated academics category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    'NOTE: Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices. These are historical, cultural facts, and these categories represent such, as an encyclopedia should. Wikipedia serves no purpose in omitting this.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For example the fact that Elizabeth Alexander (poet) is working at Columbia does not tell us anything about the history of discrimination. We have Category:African-American history for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely welcome to document the history of discrimination in the United States in the article realm, by writing documented detailed nuanced articles. It is not at all welcome to try and do so by placing randomly selected people in stigmatising categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL and other comments above. First, Ivy League is an athletic conference, and we don't do "Big South academics" or any other categorization of academics/alumni by their school's athletic conference. It's trivia. Second, the Ivy League was established in 1954; discrimination against AA in academia goes back much, much farther than that. I fail to see how the Ivy League has a special place in the history of anti-AA discrimination in academia. Indeed, I imagine most AA in history who were discriminated against by colleges and universities were discriminated against by non-Ivy League colleges and universities (since the Ivy League only has eight schools in it). Third, I don't see why an AA academic at an Ivy League school should be categorized as "Ivy League" instead of as "AA academic" or "AA academic from [school]". An AA academic from MIT or CalTech is no less impressive or important than an AA academic from the Ivy League. Fourth, the editor who created this category is, per his userpage, a graduate fellow and Wikipedian in Residence at an Ivy League school. I'm not sure if COI applies but it still seems a little self-promotional. AA academics are important, but the Ivy League is not. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/John Pack Lambert. Ben5218 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League alumni

[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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection of educational affiliation and race. TM 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Abandon the play at oppression olympics. All of these groups have been systemically and institutionally excluded from education in the US, and the western education system at large, and thus Wikipedia should reflect these historical (and present day) discrimination if it is to be an accurate encyclopedia. Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LumaNatic:Thom Hartmann mentioned on one of his radio/TV shows that he once paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation,as he looked around he saw banks of interns sitting at computers, those that could see were busy editing wikipedia. From the amount of votes to delete categories dealing with minorities and White Supremacy and comments at Teahouse. I find validation of his observations. If not Heritage interns, then fellow travelers sharing the same bias. Not all of course, but enoughOldperson (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons detailed in my !vote at the AA IL academics nom above. To summarize: IL is an athletic conference not an academic subcategory; IL is fairly recent (1954) and the history of anti-AA discrimination in academics goes back much father, and is much broader, than just the IL; and, AA IL alumni are no more "special" than non-IL AA alumni. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is lots of bias present in the attempts to defend this category. The main problem is this is a blunt instrument and is constucted with ignorance to the fact that the point of Wikipedia is not to "right great wrongs".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (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.