Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8[edit]

Category:Melbourne Dental School alumni[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: again WP:Overcat, upmerge to main university alumni Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT and small Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combined two similar items. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to alumni categories. We do not need to split by subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 15 January 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:Round towers[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: purge of lighthouses, as most lighthouses are round, so it's non-defining for them; but no consensus on the rest. I will add a "See also" link for lighthouses, instead of a hierarchical relationship. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have a hard time seeing how the cross-sectional shape of a tower is defining, or even interesting except as derived from its manner of construction. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refine. There are certain characteristics and construction features associated with round towers that make them interesting to those looking at the architecture and function of such buildings. However, my sense is that readers will often be most interested in a sub-category such as round towers on castles or round towers as lighthouses. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refine. The category should be for those buildings which are the exception to the rule. Most churches have square towers so the round ones need to be kept; most lighthouses are round so they should be scrapped. sorry if that is an oversimplification. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, as the others said, it is in need of refinement. A page like this is interesting in the sense that you wouldn't expect it to exist but it is very useful anyway. Any matter, it may be obscure but definitely not deletion worthy at all. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this gets a main article describing a unique architectural or engineering aspect that is defining, I'm willing to reconsider. Until then, this seems non-defining nor does it seem rare like Category:Hexagonal buildings. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one article at Round-tower church which suggests that there is a need for part of this category. Those towers which are simply round do need to be removed. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a round church tower category for East Anglia since there is a cultural/historical/regional basis for it according to the article. It's the rest I'm scratching my head over.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: most lighthouses seem to be round, as it presents less resistance to winds, which seem to be more extreme along coast lines. That said, we have a category for lighthouses, we don't have categories for square towers, triangular towers, octagonal towers, etc. Do we need to have categories of towers in every possible geometric shape. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Round buildings exists (and should probably be renamed to Category:Round buildings and structures, but that's a topic for another time), but for some reason, the nominated category wasn't placed in it. - Eureka Lott 00:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This is a useless and un-encyclopedic category, not least as there are vast numbers of towers of various types around the world which happen to be round but share no other common features (eg, what does the Galata Tower have in common with "The Gherkin"?). A round floor plan is a fairly common structural feature, for various engineering and other design reasons, and it's not useful to use this as a category. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nothing unique about a round tower; this category is non-defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but this might usefully be split: lighthouses are typically round. Irish round tower is a very specific class of archaeological monument, though it used to be the case that their purpose was not clear. Most towers seem to be square or rectangular, so that round ones are an exception. Perhaps split and purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge, add Category:Lighthouses as a child category and remove lighthouses from the main (nominated) category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overall lighthouse category shouldn't be in here at all, since (a) a lot of lighthouses aren't towers per se, and (b) only some of them are round towers. If it survives then individual lights would be members. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, too many lighthouses aren't round after all. So this option of "refining" the category doesn't really work. But if we leave the category like this and start populating it, it will in the end contain very many lighthouses. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a tough one, because most of the contents here are lighthouses and most lighthouses are round, so this aspect is not an unusual characteristic. I suppose someone could then dump all the round lighthouses in Category:Round buildings, but so be it. Particular round buildings such as that mentioned by Peterkingiron could be categorised in their own right. Sionk (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to metacategory. There are useful categories to be had for specific types of round towers (e.g. Irish round tower and Round tower (disambiguation)) and a simple category of "towers that are round" could contain these. Placing individual towers within it though is insufficiently defining or specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 30 January 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:Super Junior Discography[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need for this. Just upmerge and interlink the articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 8 January 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:Wikipedians who are a special snowflake and there fore must have a unique category because they want to so shut up[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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians', and the related RfC

Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, a prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 21:02, 8 January 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:Comedy albums by decade[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) feminist 05:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for Category:Albums by decade and genre--all of the other subcats of Category:Albums by decade are decades (e.g. Category:1990s albums) or album types (e.g. Category:Compilation albums by decade) and all of those are container cats as well. Does it seem like a good idea to make a scheme of albums by decade and genre? This seems like it will inevitably lead to Category:1978 jump blues compilation albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nomination and suggest nominating the current subcategories as well. I nominated the categories 2 years ago in a CfD on 11 Feb 2015 but there was not much participation resulting in no consensus. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:46, 9 January 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:Orthodox Christian pilgrimage sites[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 (non-admin closure) feminist 05:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and move the one article that is not Eastern Orthodox to Category:Christian pilgrimage sites. We have no other category in Wikipedia that exclusively combines Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy and there is no logic in combining (just) these two. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (category creator).--Zoupan 04:22, 25 January 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:Oriental Catholicism[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) feminist 05:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, Oriental Catholicism is equivalent to Eastern Catholicism. Note that an article Oriental Catholicism does not exist and Oriental Catholics redirects to Eastern Catholic Churches. No need to merge, the current content is already in Category:Eastern Catholic churches‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't know why this would be named this way. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What a strange name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. False term.--Zoupan 04:23, 25 January 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:Wave of Terror in Europe[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. The article serves as a list, and there is consensus that the category is not needed as well. – Fayenatic London 22:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article in the category Wave of Terror in Europe, which is essentially a list of recent attacks, was recently renamed Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) on the grounds that the topic was ill-defined and 'headline-y'. Propose merging the related category with 'Islamic terrorism in Europe', since the category is equally ill-defined and no useful purpose would be served by a category limited to acts perpetrated since 2014.Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 8 January 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:Order of the Crown (Monaco)[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) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The stated purpose of this medal is to award "people who have done something exceptional or by their exceptional conduct." In practice, 3 of the 4 people in this category are Monegasque royalty already categorized under Category:House of Grimaldi and the 4th person is Princess Benedikte of Denmark who is not defined by award from Monaco. If and when this award gets issued to all those exceptional people with exceptional powers, we can reconsider this category. If we decide to delete these categories, the recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Monaco. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 8 January 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:Order of Saint Charles (Mexico)[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) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When Mexican diplomatic delegations visited European countries, they gave the Order of Saint Charles (Mexico) to the local queen or princess as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Recipients like Isabel II of Spain and Empress Elisabeth of Austria just don't seem to defined by this award. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Mimich as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Mexico. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 8 January 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 in the General Epistles[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 (non-admin closure) feminist 05:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per C2D - main article recently renamed Catholic epistles. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 8 January 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_January_8&oldid=1138410889"