Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30[edit]

Category:Galaxie 500 members[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 to article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band broke up in 1991, there are only 3 members and only one of them has his own page. Fuddle (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-redirect contents are only one article, which is not sufficient to warrant navigation. Even worse, the two redirects lead to Damon and Naomi which is a separate musical group from Galaxie 500. SFB 22:11, 2 January 2015 (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 Vance, South Carolina[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just two entries. ...William 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not expected that a community of 200 will produce sufficient notable biographies. SFB 19:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, 1% of the population with articles is more then most places. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 17:36, 31 December 2014 (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:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association[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 to article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Membership in this association does not seem to be defining for any of the members (least of all the more notable ones like Springer, Taylor & Francis, and such, but not even for the exclusively OA publishers among them). Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Membership is hardly defining. Open Access seems larghely to be driven by government-funders. Some journals are Open Access; others are not. Membership certainly does not imply that all the publisher's journals are OA. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the nomination; I wasn't aware of WP:NONDEF, sorry. BTW, that guideline says: "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." It seems that a List of members... would comply with WP:LISTN -- let me know otherwise. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for a standalone list; you could easily fit the list of notable members (there are 56 in the category at present) in the parent article, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Just split it into columns and it won't take up too much screen space. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify into main article. Perfectly useful idea to cover, but the category system isn't the most effective way of doing this. It is unlikely would want to navigate through the subject articles on this basis. SFB 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where the cat was not exhaustive (not all members have wiki-articles), I assume that a list in the article would encompass the complete membership directory. Which quite literally flies into the face of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Perhaps just the most notable members could be mentioned in the text (especially if their are sources documenting that these members are actually active in this society, as opposed to just paying their dues), instead of adding a complete list. It's not our job to maintain membership directories, not even for relatively small ones like this one. --Randykitty (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I assume that a list in the article would encompass the complete membership directory..." There's no reason to assume it should any more than a list of people from FOO should duplicate the FOO phone book. But either way that's an issue for for Talk:Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2014 (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:Native American archeology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Updated close: due to some concerns expressed regarding the outcome (eg, [1], this close has been reversed for now. It's apparent that some of the categories were indeed intended to house material solely about Native American (ie, from the U.S.) topics and that some duplication has resulted in the category trees (eg, Category:Indigenous culture of the Americas already exists). This issue is continuing to be worked on by editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category showed up on the new Keatley Creek Archaological Site article, drawing my attention to it and raising an ongoing issue with the use of "Native American" to mean all indigenous cultures/peoples of the Americas, which is an Americanism and should not be used on Canadian-related categories. Note also the spelling correction from US English -eology to global Entglish aeology. I've added other categories where non-Native American-specific category themes that include other countries, but left off things like the writers categories as being specifically about in-the-US Native Americans. Culture, cuisine, clothing, tools etc are not limited or defined by the US boundary....but the term "Native American" is, particularly concerning but not only Canada. Other categories nominated are:

As one now-inactive indigenous editor commented (@OldManRivers: and was concurred with by @Phaedriel: and others long ago, modern national boundaries do not define native history or reality, other than in ways they have affected it; other similar categories have been long since renamed, e.g. Category:Native American mythology, whatever it's called now, and these need resolution, as they are used on pages t hat have nothing to do with in-US "Native Americans" but with indigenous culture and history as a whole. In cases where there is a parallel or crossover First Nations cat, a merge e.g. re "cuisine" should be contemplated; if breaking t hings down by nationality is needed in such cases, then e.g. "Indigenous dancers of Canada" and "Indigenous dancers of the United States" or the like could be used. NB as usage evolves, "First Nations" is now no longer regularly fullycapped if it's not a noun for a government or people, "a First Nations person" is now commonly seen as "a first nations person", so in time a lot of FN categories that are Canada specific and not crossover here will need revisiting/renaming as that standard becomes the provable norm. Skookum1 (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up Looking at each category I found the following:
Category:Native American archeology is already part of Category:Archaeology of the Americas and Category:Archaeological cultures of North America.
Category:Native American tools is already part of Category:Indigenous tools of the Americas.
Category:Seafood in Native American cuisine is part of Category:Native American cuisine which in turn is part of Category:Indigenous cuisine of the Americas and Category:North American cuisine.
Category:Native American sports and games is alrady part of Category:Indigenous sports and games of the Americas
Category:Native American religion is part of Category:Religion in North America but there is no category for indigenous religions. There is the Category:Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of North America.
Category:Plants used in Native American cuisine is part of Category:Native American cuisine which in turn is part of Category:Indigenous cuisine of the Americas and Category:North American cuisine.
Category:Native American dancers is part of Category:Native American people by occupation which is part of Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation
Category:Native American dances is already part of Category:Dances of the indigenous peoples of the Americas
Category:Native American cuisine is part of Category:Indigenous cuisine of the Americas and Category:North American cuisine.
Category:Native American clothing is part of Category:Indigenous textile art of the Americas
Category:Native American art is part of Category:Indigenous art of the Americas
Category:Traditional Native American dwellings is part of Category:Native American architecture which is part of Category:Indigenous architecture of the Americas
Category:Native American architecture is part of Category:Indigenous architecture of the Americas
Category:Native American culture is part of Category:Indigenous culture of the Americas by country.
CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 30 December 2014 (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:Clarion Workshop[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF mostly. This is not a full time (e.g. degree) institution that's a career for some and a defining experience for others. It's a six week course. Should be listified but they already exist at Clarion Workshop. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:33, 30 December 2014 (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:Scheme implementations[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 2 and 3, Rename the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. Rename to disambiguate and to match parent Category:Scheme (programming language)/Scheme (programming language). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename first; delete second and third The third has only one member, and besides I question the notability of what language any given software is written in. The second is only a container for the third. The first should be renamed as nominated, for clarity and consistency. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mangoe's interpretation. Current title of the implementation category is ambiguous and the rename helps. The other two aren't significant or broad enough topics to warrant a category. SFB 19:56, 30 December 2014 (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:Historical roads[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. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. We absolutely should categorize roads on things that make them historic, like Category:Military roads and Category:Trails and roads in the American Old West or those on official heritage registers. Otherwise, the inclusion criteria are way too subjective.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject History. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless some one can suggest a better solution -- All of them are in fact ancient. Sinjce this is an international category tfhe American Natioanl Register should be irrelevant. I am reluctant to see this upmerged to "Roads" as these will get lost in the plethora of articles on existing roads. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Ancient roads and tracks. Royal Road can fit in this category, while the Silk Road and Incense Route should be excluded as they are not roads – they are mixed transportation networks. SFB 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I didn't know about this cat so hadn't used it on e.g. Cariboo Wagon Road or Lakes Route and others (which I will do right now), but they're 19th Century so your proposed merge to an "ancient" title is not workable.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, Cariboo Road which is where Cariboo Wagon Road redirects to (there's another, the Old Cariboo Road, has Category:Historic trails and roads in British Columbia on it, as will Lakes Route, so I'll instead add Category:Historical roads to that one's parent, which I'm supposing is Category:Historic trails and roads in Canada or whatever the BC cat's parent it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ultimately the parent is Category:Historic trails and roads by country, the parent of which is Category:Ancient roads and tracks, which is a problematic title for anything after 500-600 AD. So thatcategory should be renamed, or merged to this one, not the other way around.Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • SFB: "the Silk Road and Incense Route should be excluded as they are not roads – they are mixed transportation networks" isn't quite right; "tracks" includes routes and doesn't exclude travel by water or changing from horses to camels. The Grease trail system in the Pacific Northwest - which 'is ancient - and are recognizable tracks, one of them in particular - though not a road. I see no reason why 'famous' route systems and trade networks that have earned the names "road" and "route"; they weren't numbered highways or royally-built formal roads, they were tracks, every bit as much as the routes spattered by oolichan grease through the Pacific Northwest wilderness were, with evidence of their existence found in towns that serviced the routes and in still-extant port cities; the Amber Route and others...is there a marine counterpart to this category? I see no reason why chartered roads only should be in a category that says "and tracks", with subcats containing "and trails".Skookum1 (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Category:Ancient roads and tracks. Historical can mean almost anything - pretty much every notable road has a history. Ancient is a well defined classifier. Royal road can go in it, the others aren't roads.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • rather than merge into, merge the ancient cat to this one; post-ancient subcats is why. "Ancient" isn't all that well-defined actually; it's used by enviro/native peoples re trees and villages and such that are only few hundred years old, or less, quite regularly.Skookum1 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by Nominator Because it wasn't properly parented, I didn't realize this category was part of the larger Category:Historic trails and roads by country tree. I think those categories are equally subjective but deleting this category in isolation will orphan the rest of the tree. I'll be back with smaller nominations to build consensus and, if those succeed, come back to this one.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the creation of Category:Gold rush roads tonight by someone; another that doesn't fit the "ancient" grandparent hierarchy. As with the NA/FN/indigenous categories discussed elsewhere on this page, the hierarchy itself is a bit jumbled and some restructuring will be needed.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was me; see my ping above. I didn't parent that in either the Ancient or Historical categories though because there are contemporary gold rush roads in Ghana. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That category needs retitling to "roads and trails" and again there's a corresponding water-routes issue to be addressed.Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2014 (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:Splatter video games[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of games, and there is no splatter video game article describing such a genre. Inclusion criteria is a subjective "emphasis is placed on the depiction of graphic violence and gore", interpreted broadly enough to cover the bleak realism of Spec Ops: The Line and the cartoony "gibs" of TF2. Not sure this produces a meaningful collection. McGeddon (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a splatter film is an actual thing, a splatter video game has yet to be established as such. Seems like WP:OR. --Soetermans. T / C 20:01, 1 January 2015 (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:Maccabiah Games bronze medalists[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 CFD 2015 Jan 30. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bronze medal at the Maccabiah Games is not a defining feature of a person. This is not a top level event like the Olympics or World Championships where a medal would represent a person reaching the peak of the sport. If this logic is accepted, the parent should be merged with the grandparent as only the gold medallists category will remain. SFB 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you think this is not a top level event. It appears to me to be one. Nor am I sure where the "must be a top level event" guideline is, though perhaps you will point us to it. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Epeefleche: It is an ethnic event which does not feature sporting competition of a top level international standard. Winning such a medal not only fails to indicate notability, it actually indicates the opposite (3rd best Jewish descent shot putter of 1963 anyone?) SFB 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which does not feature sporting competition of a top level international standard" - That's absolutely wrong. the event IS of Olympic Standard following ALL IOC guidelines and regulations (in fact it's endorsed by them). As for being an ethnic event, I'll give you that (even though that's wrong too because it's open to ALL citizens). In either case, that's not a valid reason for CFD. --32.97.110.60 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obeying the rules is not the same as reaching the standard. My regional athletics championships is in line with those rules, but medalling at that event is not a defining characteristic that we should be categorising on. Consider for example, Jeffrey Weinstein (the 2009 10,000m Maccabiah bronze medallist). His time of 33:18.96 minutes would have ranked him sixth in the English women's championships, or ranked him down near the bottom of the third-tier English men's club runners races[2]. This event is objectively not of an international standard, let alone Olympic standard. SFB 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is top-level event, exactly like the Olympics or World Championships. Since I do not have an account I cannot formally oppose this proposal, however. --32.97.110.58 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can oppose a proposal. Your not having an account should not affect the judgement of your argument. SFB 14:16, 8 January 2015 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_30&oldid=1090391688"