Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11

[edit]

Category:Division d'Honneur players

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#Category:Division d'Honneur players

Category:Ancient Greek philosophers of mathematics

[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) 03:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the two articles are already in Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians and the articles do not give much information about them being philosophers of mathematics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2021 (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:Heavy Woollen District

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG. Although there wasn't consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Woollen District to delete or merge it doesn't seem appropriate to have a category for an informal region even if it can support an article. Any entries should be moved to the district's categories namely Category:Kirklees, Category:Leeds and Category:City of Wakefield. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What grounds is this being proposed for deletion under, exactly? I was surprised the discussion didn't close as a keep, to be honest, and I see no valid deletion reason for this category - being in the district is a defining categorisation of these places. It's also been around since 2006, which I know doesn't mean anything. SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It currently serves little purpose, but it could depending on what extant articles / topics might be associated with the area such as Yorkshire (Woollen District) Electric Tramways. The issue at the moment is that its description / inclusion criteria is unclear. I would suggest that the Woollen District is a very distinct catchment area. Koncorde (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge articles about places, they are not about the district (delete category if there are not enough topic articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, too, was surprised and disappointed that the closer decided no consensus (when I had annotated 8:2) and the closer also added without prejudice; I surmise the latter was to acknowledge that early-on some commented that they would be agreeable to merge.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably because one of the merge !votes was strong even though there was a large majority favouring keep. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Woollen District and Talk:Heavy Woollen District that has firmly established that this is a notable historic geographic region. The entries don't need to be moved to Category:Kirklees etc. because they're already in them; this should be considered a parallel categorisation tree based on the historic and informal district, which crosses modern administrative boundaries. RailwayJG appears to have taken a dislike to any mention of "Heavy Woollen District" because he personally was not aware of the term before encountering it on Wikipedia—apart from the multiple deletion nominations of the article, he has tried to remove links to it from pages—and making this pointy nomination on his behalf was not wise. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me and Swale made it Joe so it's not just me. Read our talk on Crouch, Swale page before you make that accusation of me disliking any mention of it and also I was told it was an unofficial geographical term and it had nothing but a few websites which were from businesses which no longer or had nothing to do with the district and it's relevance today other then a football team and cricket team seems pointless in it could be mentioned in the wider West Yorkshire Article or Kirklees Wakefield and Leeds Article. I also removed it because only Dewsbury had it and not the other so called towns and villages so not a case of I "taken a disliking to the term" as you put it. If it exists then why didn't the term get used for a borough instead of Kirklees or Wakefield or Leeds? This article has a bunch of text and books which could be covered in the wider WYA as mentioned. So nomination was on both mine and Swale behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs)
    If it exists – multiple people have already pointed out to you that there are dozens of sources that show not just that it exists, but that it has been subject to extensive significant coverage for over a century,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]*[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] so at this point this is just classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Time to move on. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's just that a district its not the official name for the modern day Kirklees Wakefield and Leeds boroughs. These categories are already covered in article and towns and villages why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages Joe. That's the bit that can misinform and the towns are already listed in the article so why do categories need to be also present? Its not a district in the borough or Yorkshire boundary sense it is an old name for mill towns in three areas. That needs correcting do the whole time to move on point of yours is irrelevant until all of it is widely addressed. And your a Batley local like me but I can still see flaws in the name being used for both a historical term and for a modern day use when it as you said isn't as widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs)
    This is about the category, the inclusion criteria for a topic having a category is significantly higher than an article, we have tens of hundreds of articles for villages etc but only a few have categories similarly in this case there may be enough coverage to keep an article for this but that doesn't mean its defining or suitable enough for its own category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to RailwayJG's implausible implication that the term doesn't exist, not the nomination. But many of these sources also demonstrate that the term is frequently applied to the towns it covers as a defining characteristic, especially in older sources. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did i say it doesn't exist? You need to re-read the whole comment. I said and I quote "why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages". It is a local term not a government one and so the categories aren't needed. It isn't being denied to be existent and I never said it doesn't so your misinformed on that one and two the term applies to a cloth making district. Its not a district like Wakefield or Selby district. That's my point a district is two things. Either a government recognised district like Selby Wakefield Hambleton etc or a part of a town or district like Meadowhall in Sheffield or Batley Carr in Kirklees. That's is a district term for UK use and this was for a cloth that was made with some towns. As I've said which you missed I'm not against the district article being kept but it shouldn't have categories too and it says North Kirklees area in it then actually mentioning Wakefield and Leeds so that is misinformed and the article up until now was lazily written and half dead links.
    I think editors like you and a few others have gotten personal towards me by calling my comments vile condescending and someone with bad geography and history. I find those comments offensive but don't say nothing for fear of being banned for being personal towards editors so I bite my tongue and as someone who is disabled I feel vulnerable when people attack me for my edits articles and the challenges I bring up like I had with the whole Built up areas and Middlesbrough Borough authentications. They were challenged and still are being. So I don't know. I'm contributing but it seems I'm not needed to be even though I fix mistakes made or ask for reliability on things. Sorry I'm offensive and a terrible editor. As a Batley lad I'll take my cloth and leave this discussion...RailwayJG (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got nothing to add (talk)? Exactly don't misinterpret my comments as your own assumption and use falseness because you clearly did. RailwayJG (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have anything personal against you. I appreciate the work you are doing on the geography of Yorkshire and elsewhere. But please remember that when you propose that an article, category, etc. should be deleted, that is someone's work too. There's a fair expectation that you do some research before suggesting that another editor's contributions be undone. In the case of the AfD, that's looking for sources; for this CfD, it's familiarising yourself with our categorisation guidelines. At the AfD and elsewhere, many have people have pointed out to you that this is a notable concept (I quoted the part of your comment I was responding to before—"if it exists"—so apologies if I misunderstood that but I don't think it needs repeating). Here and elsewhere, many people have told you that our categories don't have to follow official classifications, and that there is no problem with parallel, overlapping categorisation schemes. When someone repeats the same points after being made aware that they're not accurate or relevant, it can be seen as disruptive behaviour. I understand that it's not pleasant to hear that, or generally have people opposing your nominations, but please understand that it is motivated by a good faith instinct to preserve other editor's work, not any malice directed at you personally. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a district characterised by a variety of woollen manufacture. This is clearly defined in the second paragraph of the main article. Like Black Country (a mining and metal manufacture district) and West Country (another cloth making district), it is not (or was not) defined by local political boundaries, but that does not mean that it cannot be defined. The AFD outcome was "no consensus to merge or delete" not "no consensus". In fact the overwhelming majority of votes was to "keep". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2021 (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.
[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 everything in category except George II of Great Britain and James Oglethorpe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, only two biographies are defined by this characteristic, for other biographies it is a matter of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:03, 11 April 2021 (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.

Template:Liberland-stub

[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 21:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no stubs in the category (there are only two articles in Category:Liberland) Donald Albury 17:05, 11 April 2021 (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:Liberland stub templates

[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 21:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a stub template for a category in which there are only two articles, neither of which is a stub Donald Albury 16:56, 11 April 2021 (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:Soft science fiction novels

[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) 03:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING This is a vague category and relies too much on opinion. I'm not sure what would qualify a novel to go in it, and I suspect most people feel the same, as it has only two entries after five years. Robina Fox (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (See below.) We have Soft science fiction, which includes links to close to 40 WP articles about works and series classified as "soft science fiction". It is not up to editors to decide whether a science fiction work is "soft". I often see science fiction works described as soft, and as long as reliable sources describe works as "soft science fiction", I think the category will be useful. - Donald Albury 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the articles on the novels mentioned in Soft science fiction, and only Dune and The Last Policeman contain any reference to soft science fiction, and the latter has it only in the infobox, without citation. Ella, which is in the category, also contains nothing about it in the article. Robina Fox (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that there are reliable sources out there. On-line, I find some libraries have pages discussing soft science fiction books, but those appear to be staff blogs. I do see books out there, such as The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (St. Martin's Press) that would be reliable sources. Unfortunately, they are not viewable on-line and are not in my local library. I can see about getting an inter-library loan for one or more of those. I think the point is though, it does appear that the categorization of works as "soft science fiction" can be cited from reliable sources. - Donald Albury 02:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will not hold out for keeping this category for now. The local library is not taking interlibrary loan requests at this time, and I will have to wait to gain access to reliable sources that I believe will support categorizing works as "soft science fiction". I will reserve the option of recreating the category if and when I can access appropriate reliable sources. - Donald Albury 22:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The distinction between soft science fiction and hard science fiction has been debated for over 40 years now, and the limits between the two categories are poorly defined. Per the main article on soft science fiction: "In The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Peter Nicholls writes that "soft SF" is a "not very precise item of SF terminology" and that the contrast between hard and soft is "sometimes illogical."[1] " And it does overlap other categories. Entire subgenres and movements of science fiction have been described as "soft", including the New Wave science fiction, Cyberpunk, and most examples of dystopian fiction. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2021 (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:Inner City Broadcasting Corporation radio stations

[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) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Company no longer exists; it was broken up in 2011. Category only contains the parent article on the company. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:28, 11 April 2021 (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:Viva Media radio stations

[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) 03:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Company owns just three radio stations total (KBEX-LP, KBEX (FM), KQFX (FM)). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 11 April 2021 (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:Immaculate Heart Radio stations

[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) 03:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merged with Relevant Radio under that name and no longer exists. Stations in this category can now be found at Category:Relevant Radio stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Mlaffs (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (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:Morris Communications radio stations

[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) 03:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Morris Communications sold its stations to Alpha Media in 2015, and the last remaining straggler has been removed from the category (it was already in "Alpha Media radio stations"). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator (how is it possible that was almost a decade ago?) Mlaffs (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2021 (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:Pembrook Pines

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This company appears to be a component of Waypoint and commonly owned with it. The stations are in one common navbox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy merge. I created that category many years ago when Pembrook Pines was still an independent company and it hasn't been updated since they went out of business in 2014 (though I will note that the Pembrook Pines stations are being spun off to another company, Seven Mountains Media, if their sale closes this year—but either way, an update is many years overdue). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (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 written by Dan Andrews

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2021 (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 Royal Order of Monisaraphon

[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) 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and likely WP:PERFCAT)
The Royal Order of Monisaraphon is a general purpose award from Cambodia with the stated purpose of honoring "literature and the fine arts, education, justice, administration, and science". The 7 articles in this category look very different though: three were given as diplomatic souvenirs to foreign visitors (1, 2, 3), three were given to Cambodian royalty who are already under Category:Cambodian royalty (4, 5, 6), and one was a foreign minister of Cambodia who is already under Category:Foreign ministers of Cambodia (7). None seem even remotely defined by this award. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2021 (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:Mila Dimitrijević Award winners

[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) 03:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD approaching WP:TRIVIALCAT)
English Wikipedia doesn't have a main article on Mila Dimitrijević Award. I looked at the first 5 articles and, while none even mention the award in the text, it's a Croatian award for performing artists. The off Wikipedia coverage is pretty sparse as the top 2 Google search results are Wikipedia. I copied the category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2021 (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.
  1. ^ "Soft SF," Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. John Clute and Peter Nicholls, 1995, ISBN 0-312-13486-X.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_11&oldid=1021493717"