Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

[edit]

Category:Irish Ombudsman

[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 to Category:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: opposed speedy
Oppose Shouldn't it be Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland)? Pppery (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote. The name change should be for the whole island. We can then create another to cater exclusively for the Republic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2016 (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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television

[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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category has bean started s o time for merger of some categorys ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System

[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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Time Warner is here so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Independent Productions

[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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category is here, so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Downtown Productions

[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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category is here so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (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:Men with beards

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary category that is extremely trivial and runs afoul of WP:OCAT —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same category exists in Commons. I do not say that if it exists there, it should exist here. But it would be easy for readers who would want to know which men wore what type of beards, if such a category is maintained. - Veera.sj (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Commons; this is an encyclopedia. Categories such as Commons:Category:Red vans make sense there, but not here. DexDor (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I really didn't want to be reminded of the episode from around the first of the year wherein a certain admin told me I'm confused about categorization on the encyclopedia and provided a link to some categorization page on Commons so that I could figure it out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:45, 20 July 2016 (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:Chris Christie appointees

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I haven't found any other category of officials-by-political-appointer. Even the Category:United States Supreme Court justices, whose appointments are heavily scrutinised for political leaning, are not categorised by appointer.
Unless there is a consensus for wider process of categorising officials by who appoints them, then this looks rather like a WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor Chris Christie. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The administration of any elected official is often comprised of that that official's appointees who shape the policy of that administration. Their mention, while important, would perhaps make the target too long. The category enables readers to view how a particular politician create's an administration. The lack of of similar categories recognises the lack, but doesn't explain why the the category shouldn't exist. That US Supreme Court justices would be only one of the many appointees that official (US president in that case) is not really relevant here. The nominator's opinion as to why the category was created is in inappropriate conjecture.Djflem (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant principle here is WP:DEFINING, and officials are defined more by the job they did than by who appointed them. The justification above makes a case that the appointments defined the appointer; but this a category of appointees. A category doesn't belong on article if it defines someone else.
The category system cannot encompass every attribute and nuance of a person's career, and some things are much better described in prose. That could be prose in the biographical article, or prose in a standalone list, or both. Why not make a List of appointments by Chris Christie? The list could offer a lot more detail and context than the category, and it would be much more informative to readers. The whole area of political patronage is under-documented on en.wp, and lists like this could help fill at least some of that gap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – some of the articles don't even mention Christie, a classic indicator that the characteristic is not all that important, ie not defining. Oculi (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Untrue: of 40 articles cited in category, all but one mention being named or appointed by Christie to the position, and that has more to do with an oversight in article itself. In other words, it is defining.Djflem (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conveneintly overlooked the other 35+ other articles in which it is mentioned?Djflem (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this, which suggests that an editor added a category to a page when it did not even mention the attribute. Oh yes, here it is: 2. There is also this where presumably a source could not be found. We could have a host of categories along these lines based on interesting factoids possibly in articles: 'appointed by Theresa May', 'sacked by Theresa May', 'insulted by Boris Johnson', 'betrayed by Michael Gove'. 'called a liar by Donald J Trump'. It's mildly interesting but not defining. Oculi (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with making corrections to articles? To address the cherry picking: That Elizabeth Connelly was not part of the Christie administration (so there wouldn't be a source to be found) and James Weinstein was head of New Jersey Transit appointed by Christie and a citation (preferred by Wikipedia) was added. Any comments on the remaining 35+ articles which all cite the defining fact ?
Ambassadorships, judgeships, and cabinet level positions are significant appointments which merit articles on Wikipedia. Lower-level positions likely do not have articles on the encyclopedia.Djflem (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one views Template:Infobox officeholder one sees the name of the appointer/nominator is often present. Wikipedia's inclusion acknowledges the significance of the relationship and indicates its importance/merit for mentionDjflem (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is mainly known for a position for which he or she is appointed, the apppointee is part of what makes that role defining.Djflem (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the example cited above of Matthew Boxer. He is a technocrat, appointed by a Democrat and reappointed by a Repub. His defining characteristic is that he is a non-partisan technocrat, not that one of his terms of office was under a particular governor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words someone who has nothing to do with WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor Chris Christie as earlier mentioned since he has nothing to do with them. He's but 1 example of 40 articles who happens to be a technocrat and not a judge or member of the administration's cabinet or governor's office or head of a major state agency? As one knows, one cherry-picked example is not a reason to disqualify an entirel cat. Non-inclusion would, on the other hand, not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.Djflem (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your last sentence? e.g. how can deleting a category affect the correctness of Wikipedia? DexDor (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not including the above cited example in the cat would not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.Djflem (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably a "Christie cabinet" or "Christie administration" template, but in many cases (don't know about NJ) a governor appoints literally hundreds of people to various roles from executive, to staff, to judges, regents, tax collectors, etc. that may not be part of his or her administration. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the point…because of the uncertainty of the quantity it shouldn't be a category? There are plenty of cats with hundreds of entries, of which this isn't one.Djflem (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Political appointments are a matter of interest to Wikipedia, including categories, as seen in selection of examples:
Djflem (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why there are articles, templates, and categories which address political appointments, as above. Djflem (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing people by what governor or president appointed them will just create a mess. This is especially true because many Supreme Court and other US justices got appointed earlier to other positions, some chief justices were previously associate justice, some had served in lower court appointments. This would just create a huge mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly the case: See Category:United States federal judges by appointing president which shows that apparently hasn't happened.Djflem (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2016 (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:Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra geography stubs

[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. I have merged template to both Category:Morocco geography stubs and Category:Western Sahara geography stubs. If this is not ideal, it can be adjusted by editing Template:LaâyouneSakiaElHamra-geo-stub. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Limited size of permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2016 (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:Udaipur geography stubs

[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. I have merged template to both Category:Rajasthan geography stubs and Category:Udaipur stubs. If this is not ideal, it can be adjusted by editing Template:Udaipur-geo-stub. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Total of 12 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this time. Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might be bit new for this section of Wikipedia, but how many entries do we expect for having a permanent category? Vishal0soni (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2016 (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:Skagway, Alaska geography stubs

[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, in accordance with the other discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less than 20 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category. Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those category pages have now been tagged, which now leaves this particular category an anomaly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:17, 20 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per consensus on all SGK-related userspace pages, and to comply with WP:DENY. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2016 (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 who were rejected for the Medal of Honor

[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. I've added the names of the people who were in this category in the Medal of Honor article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally avoid categorizing people by things that they are not or things that they did not achieve. Do we really want to categorize people for not having been given an award? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2016 (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:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia

[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: merged. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this oddly named category can simply be dispersed to Category:CIA activities in Africa and Category:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific. The latter category I have nominated for renaming in the discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (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:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Normally we would use "Oceania" in the place of "the Pacific". Here it is unnecessary, though, even if we wanted to combine the two continents for this category. All of the contents relate to CIA activities in Asia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (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:Years in Sikkim

[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 nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly fine-grained given our limited coverage of events in Sikkim. Same arguments hold as for Odisha, see below. --PanchoS (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (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:Years in Odisha

[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 to Category:Lists of Ollywood films by year, and to the decades categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Rather than delete the year categories, I have redirected them to their respective decades. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: India is huge, so if properly covered, we should easily have sufficient articles on every state in every year. Fact is though that only a handful of these categories contain more than a single list article on that year's Ollywood films. Until there's an average of at least three articles per year, these WP:NARROWCATs impede navigation more than they help. We should rather categorize by decade, a scheme that works well for other Indian states, see as an example 1990s in Jammu and Kashmir, 2000s in Jammu and Kashmir and 2010s in Jammu and Kashmir, and may be further generalized for all Indian states. --PanchoS (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2016 (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:Books about LGBT

[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. I've moved Category:Books about preventing homosexuality to Category:Books about sexuality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The awkward name notwithstanding, this category does not seem to fit well into the hierarchy of Category:LGBT literature (which contains such categories as Category:LGBT non-fiction books and Category:LGBT fiction). It seems to be differentiated mainly by its inclusion of Category:Books about preventing homosexuality, which does not belong in the Category:LGBT literature tree. Ringbang (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2016 (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/2016_July_19&oldid=1086105662"