Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Category:National Distance Running Hall of Fame inductees[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) SSTflyer 05:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCAWARD.
The WP:DEFINING characteristic of these runners is their athletic achievements, not their inclusion in a hall of fame.
They are already listed at National Distance Running Hall of Fame, and grouped in a navbox: {{National Distance Running Hall of Fame inductees}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 31 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:Earth satellites of Russia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: renamed to Category:Earth observation satellites of Russia (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistent with parent cat fgnievinski (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing it to Category:Earth observation satellites of Russia, which matches the actual parent category. Note it's "observation", not "observing". — Huntster (t @ c) 08:20, 7 August 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:LSU Lady Tigers soccer coaches[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: page name is LSU Tigers women's soccer Joeykai (talk) 22:25, 31 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:2013 IRS scandal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (criterion C2.D). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the title article; more NPOV NW (Talk) 12:36, 31 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:Syrian National Coalition 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: rename to Category:National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces politicians. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to politicians, as "members" of a coalition is ambiguous, it may also refer to member organizations instead of individual people. Also rename the category to reflect the full name of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 31 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.

Electric cooperatives by U.S. state[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous, withdrawn nomination.
With RevelationDirect's input, it became clear that U.S. "electric cooperatives" is a widely established concept and terminology dating back to New Deal rural electrification bills. With some 900 co-ops, largely dispersed over the whole country, it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives. Together with at least 200+ historic ones, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. Small categories may be expected to grow with better coverage, and the handful of WP:SMALLCAT ones (New England and California) have not even been created (and should not, for the time being).
The only non-electric cooperative in these per-state subcategories is the Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative. In fact, with 260 individual co-ops, rural telephone cooperatives in the U.S. are another distinct, widely established concept with substantial undercoverage. "Utility cooperatives" however is a rather new term trying to build on the two preexisting sectors. Though going back to the 1994 Rural Utilities Service, it can't be considered widely established, and – if kept as an intermediate container category, might be better termed "Cooperative utilities". Anyway, dispersing Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative to Category:Telephone cooperatives in the United States and Category:Cooperatives based in Arkansas, we should be done for now, waiting for better coverage. --PanchoS (talk) 04:52, 31 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:Topography techniques and subfields[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: no consensus to merge, but I will implement the rename since there's been no opposition to it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: limited growth potential fgnievinski (talk) 04:49, 31 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:Recipients of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal[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) 05:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal is the 3rd highest award issued by the United States Intelligence Community after the National Intelligence Medal for Valor (2nd highest) and National Intelligence Cross (1st highest) (Source, Page 12). This award is primarily for a long career of "sustained, selfless service" (same source) and the recipients--at least the ones we know about--are high ranking career employees. These people seem more defined by categories they are already in like Category:U.S. Secretaries of Defense, Category:U.S. Directors of National Intelligence and Category:Directors of Naval Intelligence. If we decide to delete this category, the known winners are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified EricSerge as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Espionage. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining to those who recieved it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably recipients are notable for something else before they receive this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be an award for merit, not an automatic award for long service. I'm distinctly uneasy about these recent attempts to delete categories for awards for merit, as they seem like the thin end of the wedge. Who is anyone here to say they're "non-defining"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This award doesn't have a clear formula of 20 years or a certain rank so there does appear to be some discretion for individual merit. Going through the individual recipient articles though, in practice this award seems to clearly be a service award from my perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think too many categories are deleted on grounds of being "non-defining" but in this case I don't think deletion would be particularly harmful. Fritz Ermarth is maybe the only person where the medal seems to be defining and that makes for too small a category. However, National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal contains a (referenced) list of recipients which serves readers who want to find out about these people. Without such a list I would say "keep" because the legitimate interests of readers are far more important than removing "clutter" from the foot of articles. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 8 August 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:Grand Masters of the Order of Independence (Jordan)[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) 05:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Every single one of these awards is given to the King of Jordan and to no one else. We already have a category for those people (Category:Kings of Jordan) and these automatic awards are not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Jordan. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted similar automatic "Grand Master" categories with the Netherlands, Malaysia and Austria here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- This is an ex officio position of the king, so that the category adds nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rule should be one office, one category. If someone is the King of Jordan and as such is ceremonial head of however many orders of honor, there is no reason to but them in other categories related to this. This would be like if for the US president we had a category for presidents of the US (which we do) and one for commanders-in-chief of the US military (Which since it is one of the functions of the US president, we do not have a seperate category).John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 1 August 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:Methods in archaeology[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 (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Methods in archaeology to article List of methods in archaeology
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic for many members. fgnievinski (talk) 02:16, 31 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.

American sportspeople convicted of crimes[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 as nominated, except that the first target of Category:American footballers convicted of crimes is Category:American football people. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: These people are defined by the fact that when convicted of a crime, they had been in the public eye as sportspeople. They are not defined by having been criminals from one sport rather than another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least the footballers, which should probably be renamed football players (more American sounding), because there has been lots of attention paid to NFL players and their run-ins with the law (just google "criminality of nfl players") and even some notable newspapers maintain databases to back up the connection. (see this link, which includes arrests and acquittals as well as convictions). The connection between a job involving aggression and its possible carryover off the field is not a forgone non-correlative. As for whether people are defined as the football player who committed a crime, I'd assert that football players (and probably other sports stars) arrested/charged/convicted of crimes receive a lot more attention than the non-professional sports-folk, and probably more than (what I'll term) non-agressive sportspeople (divers, curling people, long jumpers, dressage, bowling, and billiards) get when they are arrested/charged/convicted of crimes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They generally are defined according to their sport, reported on by journalists and media that cover their sport, and notable mostly to fans of their sport. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - playing their sport at a certain level is defining and being convicted of a crime might be defining (I would argue it isn't in all cases), but intersecting these categories at this level is not necessarily defining in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We could start getting more granular with the the crimes too: Category:Lacross players convicted of grand theft auto. I'm willing to say the intersection of athlete and crime is defining, but getting more specific is what the specific sports and specific crime categories are for on that article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Each page has under 50 articles in it. One caution, we need to make sure that the target pages do not end up creating category overlap if these people are already in more specific sub-categories of Category:American baseball players etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but change the target of the footballers category from Category:American footballers (a category redirect related to "soccer") to Category:American football people (parent category). These categories constitute quadruple-intersections of nationality (American), occupation (sportsperson), field/sport, and criminal conviction. Although there is real-world interest in the relationship between criminality (or, perhaps more accurately, violent behavior) and participation in specific sports (see e.g., here and here), categorization does a poor job of capturing this by lumping together the murderer with the drug user and the domestic abuser with the tax evader under the label of people "convicted of crimes". -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:06, 8 August 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:Research institutes by type[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Type" is too vague. fgnievinski (talk) 00:59, 31 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:Science organizations by topic[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: no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many members are not devoted to scientific research and education, e.g., there are companies and governamental agencies. fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it seems to me that systematizing a category by "topic" is different from systematizing by "academic discipline". At the moment, this seems like apples and oranges. I actually need more clarification to change my Ivote to supporting this proposal. Also, I think moving this to Category:Science organizations by academic discipline works better. It seems the focus is "science organizations" and not just plain "organizations". Making this change to just plain "organizations" leaves this wide open to any random organization, and could be used to confer or infer noteworthiness or significance on a promotional piece about a company. Right now, I cannot agree ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure who to interpret this objection, because the category already contains non-science organizations such as societies and companies. This happens naturally because the subcategories by academic discipline aren't limited to science organizations. So the proposed name Category:Organizations by academic discipline covers exactly what is in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a quick look at the sub-categories and it appears these are populated by organizations that focus on science. How can a non-science organization be in the "science organization" category?
Also, societies are populated by scientists (or academicians or researchers - choose your designation), hence these are scientific organizations or "science organizations" - I really don't understand the thinking that these are not. And, as stated below "academic discipline" contains the sciences within as a subset, and also includes non-scientific disciplines. This would rapidly become an over-bloated category, which would then devolve into subcategories, and you're back to where you started. In fact, now that I envision what I just wrote, I don't think this is a well thought out proposal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, these are all science categories (or sub-categories) about science organizations. To me this makes it all the more necessary to change to "Categpry:Science organizations by academic discipline and not "Category:Organizations by academic disciplines". As I said earlier, the latter is way too open ended and could allow for population or promotional pieces by any random organization and deem it noteworthy. With "Catetgory:Science organizations..." it is very clear what the parameters are - and will help out any group of editor monitoring new pages being created and so on... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you'd better nominate the subcategories for rename, because if you don't nothing will change in the category content and it will continue to contain organizations in general rather than science organizations specifically (as acknowledged by this nomination). However I wouldn't support a new nomination like that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Steve Quinn as needless upmerging to a parent that does not exist. At best, "academic discipline" is a superset of "science". I have no objection to the creation of a Category:Organizations by academic discipline that contains within it a subcat for science along side subcats for...humanities, social science, fine arts, etc. And if renaming the existing one to a canonical "XX organizations by academic discipline" (to match that new parent, and for all sister cats of Category:Science organizations by academic discipline) rather than "...topic" makes it clearer for someone, I have no objection. DMacks (talk) 03:32, 12 August 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:Police in fiction[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Law enforcement" is more inclusive than "police" and permits the inclusion of topics related to non-police organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom's rationale. --Atvica (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Category:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category. Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created. Additionally, Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive. Therefore, it seems that creating this proposed category is superfluous and will really make a mess - and I am sorry to say that - but that is what I foresee. Particularly since Category:Police in fiction already has 111 articles. Do we move this and eventually bloat to 500 articles? (which will then devolve into a number of subcategories). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for sharing your concerns. I will try to address them separately:
    • "Category:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category." – A category's title should reflect the intended scope of that category. The scope indicated by the current title, Police in fiction, would exclude the FBI and suggest that it be removed. Renaming the category better aligns the title with the intended scope.
    • "Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created." – Can you please explain why you think this would happen?
    • "Additionally, Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive." – The hierarchy of topics is law in fiction > law enforcement in fiction > police in fiction. Going from law in fiction directly to police in fiction skips a level.
    Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I misread the proposed category. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't see a problem moving to category:law enforcement in fiction. I rescind my opposition to this name change/category move. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I have to admit I use police and law enforcement interchangeably. however if the later is slightly broader, I see no reason to not use the broader name. To make things more fuzzy, in some fictional works you have characters who based on their actual described office should not be functioning as police, but are actually based on their actions portrayed as being police. So I do not think there is any workable scope for two categories, no matter how much potential content we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 28 August 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_31&oldid=1074816693"