Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Category:French marine engineers[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 here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naval engineer is a synonym, and in France the main term, for a naval architect – broadly, designer of ships. Marine engineer is a wider term encompassing e.g. design of harbours, ship engines and torpedos. The members of this category are ship designers (including one submarine designer). Rather than follow the parent and be named Category:French naval architects, I have proposed "French naval engineers" as this is closer to the dominant French usage. This will revert an undiscussed out-of-process move by user:Afil in 2015. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 17 February 2017 (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 shot by a U.S. Vice President[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) 07:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a serious category. Two-entry category, apparently a synthesis created to advance a personal political viewpoint by linking unrelated events. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom, and per prior discussions. Let's end this... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2017 (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:Women visual artists[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. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with very little practical or substantive distinction from the target. We use the Category:Artists tree to contain visual artists, with the result that almost everything here is a subcategory of both this and Category:Women artists at the same time -- and there are very few if any subcategories of Women artists that genuinely don't belong here as well. In actual practice, all this ever really contains is either redundant categorization of artists who are already subcatted as women photographers or women painters or women sculptors anyway, or undercategorization of people who should be recatted that way. Given that visual artists are who the "artists" category generally contains in the first place, there's no real need for a separate "visual artists" subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge there are too few non-visual artists in this category to make it a worthwhile distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It looks.to me that there are over 20 sub-cats that are contained in this category. This category needs to stay to allow for growth and expansion. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2017 (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:Visual artists[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. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there is a distinction here in theory, there really isn't much of one in actual practice. While musicians are sometimes referred to as "recording artists", for example, Wikipedia does not use the "artists" tree to contain musicians -- we use it to contain artists in the painter, sculptor, illustrator, photographer sense of the term, with the consequence that literally almost everything filed here is simultaneously a subcategory of Category:Artists by medium. In practice, all this ever really attracts is redundant categorization of people who are already subcatted as painters or sculptors or photographers or designers anyway, or the occasional undercategorization of people who should be refiled in the more specific subcategories. And about the only things here that can't be added to Category:Artists by medium are a "child" category that could be upmerged to Category:Artists without difficulty, a Category:Women visual artists category that effectively just duplicates Category:Women artists unnecessarily, and Category:People in the video game industry. This just isn't really serving any substantive purpose different from what Category:Artists and its subcategories are already doing. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am afraid I reject your assertion that art is the same as visual art. There are a number of arts for which the perceptual mode is not visual, or not wholly visual. Conceptual art, Process art, Textile arts, Culinary art are some examples. If Wikipedia does not use the "artists" tree to link to musicians and performance artists, I consider that kind of cultural bias to be a bug, not a feature. --Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Textile arts are still visual, because the end result is a tangible, viewable product. Performance art is visual, because it involves performing an action for an audience. Process art still has a visual aspect, because it's about the making of a thing. Literally the only thing that can be classified as art but not as visual art is sound art, and one distinction is not enough to warrant two separate category trees for two almost-completely overlapping terms. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree shouldn't someone looking for artists see painters and a choice, rather than trying to figure out navigating to visual artists? simplicity is preferred. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing an un-intuitive category layer, and if even visual artists is slightly narrower than artists it won't harm if they all come together in one artists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - reductionist arguments might help things fit - but the semantic difference between the usage of the two terms is enough to have separate - the same works on the other side - project tags on talk pages suffer from the same conflation - my dictionary Visual arts: the arts of painting. sculpting, engraving etc as opposed to music, drama and literature Urdang, Laurence; Wilkes, G. A. (Gerald Alfred), 1927- (1979), Collins dictionary of the English language : an extensive coverage of contemporary international and Australian English, Sydney Collins, ISBN 978-0-00-433079-2{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)- in distinction to Arts imaginative, creative, and non scientific branches of knowledge considered collectively JarrahTree 10:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a case for renaming our "artists" tree to "visual artists" — but our artists tree is not being used to contain artists in the musical, dramatic or literary senses, but artists in the painting, sculpting, photographing and engraving sense. Again, there may be a distinction between the two in theory, but there is not a distinction between the way the two categories are actually getting used in fact. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2017 (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:Moveable holidays (US Thanksgiving date based)[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 Observances based on the date of Thanksgiving (United States). Deryck C. 13:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was caught up in a previous discussion which was inconclusive due to differences over multiple nominations. As with discussion over Easter-based holidays I have omitted "moveable" as implied. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with "observances" rather than "holidays"; the point is well-taken. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about you, Marcocapelle? – Fayenatic London 12:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, support "observances" as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (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 1.0 assessments[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. ℯxplicit 03:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia. Fixuture (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Not sure what your point is here? I know of that page but as said the assessments don't have much to do with their initial use anymore. The page you linked just documents the historic set up of this, not its current use. --Fixuture (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong support – as I said in the requested move (now done), assessment has grown far beyond this WikiProject. Laurdecl talk 23:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as user:jc37 has not come back to explain his opposition. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a good idea seeing the redundancy of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (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.

The reason this was a bad idea is that 1.0 bot relies on the category to function. This change has broken 1.0 bot for all projects. Brad 21:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to revert this? All assessment data collection has come to a halt because of this one change. Walkerma (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue this at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Bot_is_down_again. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I undid all these changes. as it seems there is no-one ready to update user:WP 1.0 bot. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TPTL[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, category is empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for seemingly self-promotional reasons. See the history of ASCII art; even if the additions to that were properly sourced there is no need for this category. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:22, 17 February 2017 (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:History of Ukraine (1569–1795)[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 13:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the scope largely overlaps with its parent Category:Early Modern history of Ukraine and the content does not belong here as a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2017 (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:History of Belarus (1569–1795)[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 13:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Normally I would at most have proposed renaming this category to Category:Early Modern history of Belarus so there's no fundamental objection against the category. The problem however is that the category doesn't contain anything about the (local) history of Belarus. It just contains a random selection of articles and categories from the tree of Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth‎. So delete in the spirit of being an empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant rename Category:History of Belarus (1569–1795) -> Category:Early Modern history of Belarus in line with Laurel Lodged's suggestion, even though he agreed to delete the category.GreyShark (dibra) 10:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, as long as we get rid of the anachronistic "16th century in Belarus", "17th century in Belarus" and "18th century in Belarus" (should be merged into "centuries in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" and tagged as Category:Early Modern history of Belarus).GreyShark (dibra) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but the latter will then be for a new nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2017 (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:Songs about Argentina[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. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization based on country. —IB [ Poke ] 06:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We have several other categories about songs about countries. I don't see why Argentina should be excluded from this. Plus: there was already a category about songs about Buenos Aires. User:Kjell Knudde, 9:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Comment: I'd need to understand what "about" means here, - is it another word for "related to", or does it mean songs with a focus on Argentina, of what? I have doubts if any of such unprecise and ambiguous categories should exist, and don't believe that just because others exist, this one should. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A song about a country is a song about a specific location in that specific country or about the country as a whole. If there are enough songs about a specific city in that location than they can be subcategorized, but this isn't always the case. -- User:Kjell Knudde 9:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. These songs aren't about geography, they just contain the name of the country. This may be different for other country categories (or maybe not), so I think we should discuss them one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't get the problem. What do you have against Argentina? All the categorized songs are about Argentina or locations in Argentina, so they fit the category perfectly. And of course they'll namedrop the name of the country or an Argentinean city. Otherwise we couldn't name them "Songs about Argentina". -- User:Kjell Knudde 9:10 9 March 2017 (UTC).
  • The problem is that they just mention the name of the country, but aren't about the country. And by the way I've nothing against Argentina. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (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:American women bloggers[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bloggers can be notable at young ages. JDDJS (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Woman can be used to refer to any female humans, as it is here. There is no need to presume that it refers only to adults. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons given by User:BrownHairedGirl. We do not usually disambiguate by age anyway. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete women bloggers don't blog differently than men bloggers. The don't compete separately like in tennis or golf, or receive separate slews of awards at an established high level (like Oscars, Tonys, Grammys, etc., where winning one basically makes you per se notable at WP) that are sex-based. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for this category isn't whether women blog differently than men do. As long as there is real reliable source research into whether women write differently than men do, which there is, Category:Women writers can have any necessary subcategories for any individual type of writing so that the size of Category:Women writers is managed. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If somebody wants to propose the entire Category:Women writers tree for renaming to Category:Female writers, I'd be willing to consider their arguments in good faith — for starters, the tree is currently located at "Women writers" rather than "Female writers" but the parallel one for men is located at "Male writers" rather than "Men writers", suggesting that one of the two categories should probably be renamed for proper parity. But as long as the parent is still at "women writers", the nominee has to stay at "women bloggers". Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (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:Houses completed in 662[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: dual merge without prejudice to a fresh discussion about the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These are the only by-year subcats of their respective centuries. It is highly unlikely that wikipedia will ever have enough articles on houses of that era to make a by-year scheme worthwhile. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (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/2017_February_17&oldid=1141927702"