Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

[edit]

American stations with a three-letter call sign

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared naming characteristic. The characteristic highlighted in these categories is trivial and is covered well in List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States. Stations with three-letter call signals are older stations, since the issuance of three-letter call signals ceased in 1930. But unless we want to keep these categories as a type of "old stations" categorization, I don't see the point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 3 March 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.

Polygamous wives

[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. This close is no bar to re-listing, especially as the initial discussion focussed on WP:G4 and WP:SMALLCAT, but the later contributions bring up WP:SUBJECTIVECAT which is worth a fresh discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were deleted in 2007. They are far from complete (not every wife has an article) and both have lists: List of Joseph Smith's wives, List of Brigham Young's wives. I think there are a few more articles for both categories than there was at that time of the 2007 discussion. I am neutral on deletion (I created the Joseph Smith category), I just wanted to turn it over to CFD for a decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why would these be deleted but not the other categories in Category:Wives by person?--User:Namiba 00:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. The previous discussion only dealt with these two. The discussion was a long time ago and perhaps many of the subcategories of Category:Wives by person did not yet exist. There are some differences. Most of the wives of Joseph Smith and many of Brigham Young's were not "wives" in the traditional sense. Many of the women were simply "sealed for eternity" to Smith or Young in a ceremony, and that was it – no cohabitation, no conjugal relations, no children. Many of Smith's wives continued to be married to other men with whom they did cohabitate and have children. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, these seem to be fairly defining characteristics. The previous time the rationale was WP:SMALLCAT but that is no longer very applicable either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as well. They are no longer smallcats.--User:Namiba 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are not small categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Small or no longer small cats - who cares? ->Those co-existing lists are IMHO fairly enough for that trivial contents! --Just N. (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to the complex and often contested nature of the marriages, especially in the case of Joseph Smith, there are nuances that need to be considered through a list and can never be adequately covered with a category. Even the Joseph Smith list is highly suspect since it under uses the most published expert on the subject, Brian C. Hales. Multiple experts have published lists of the wives of Joseph Smith that do not agree, and some very competent researchers would challenge the use of the term "wife" for some women who Joseph Smith was sealed to but there is absolutely no evidence they ever stopped living with their existing husbands in a maritial relationship. The contents here are too contested to ever adeqautely be covered by a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the statuses of some of Smith's and Young's "wives" are contested, but I think most of the articles in these categories are relatively clear-cut cases. Except maybe Fanny Alger in the Smith category. But the whole source of her notability is being a suspected wife of Smith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seems like it's a reasonable complement for the header list article List of Brigham Young's wives, List of Brigham Young's wives. I would assume that at the time of the last AFD there were hardly any articles on the wives in mainspace, but that's no longer the case. Whether, the list themselves or the articles on individual wives are actually notable is another question however...--Prisencolin (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (there are already lists, so no need to listify) - The question of smallcat is immaterial. The names of the categories are not "suspected wives of..." - These would seem to be good examples of where a list is more appropriate than a category. Being in a category is a binary proposition, the article either meets the inclusion criteria or it doesn't. And since that would appear to not be possible to assess in several entries of these categories, and as it appears to not just be a simple matter of pruning, these should be lists per WP:CLS to allow for explanation of inclusion, and not categories. And since the lists already exist, this is a simple Delete. - jc37 02:22, 3 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:Unidentified vehicle accident victims

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual content. Just half a dozen redirects which take you to List of unidentified decedents in the United States. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 3 March 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:People who died in office

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is defining about it? Is it something we commonly put in the introduction because it is one of their signature achievements?--User:Namiba 13:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining. (BTW, Wikidata has SPARQL queries to create such lists). -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the US federal judges are appointed for life. Starting in the mid-20th century plans for retirement were introduced, but at least Supreme Court justices still regularly die in office. I can easily think of other office holders, like monarchs, who in very high numbers of cases die in office. This is not a broadly defining category of all public office holders, and since office can include membership on various community boards this will not be defining overall.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon to renominate. This was discussed recently. Are we now letting nominators turn around and take new bites at the apple until they get the result they want? BD2412 T 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for renaming five months ago. User:Rathfelder nominated it for deletion. I think your history and terminology needs correcting.--User:Namiba 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you nominated it for renaming, but the consensus of participants was to "keep" the category. I am baffled by this drive to delete useful and sourced information from the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 03:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you read the close correctly. It explicitly says "do not rename" as the first three words. It says nothing about keeping.--User:Namiba 14:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the close also says that there is consensus to create Category:Politicians who died in office as a subcategory, which entails keeping the supercategory. BD2412 T 18:40, 10 March 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:Presidents of the United States who died while in office

[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) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the discussions on UK MPs and judges, the act of dying in office is not defining of US presidents or any officeholder. Category:Assassinated Presidents of the United States exists as does List of presidents of the United States who died in office so no information is lost by deletion. User:Namiba 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree that it's not defining for MPs, it wouldn't be defining for politicians in general.--User:Namiba 21:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:United States Presidents and death.--User:Namiba 18:47, 14 March 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:Taxa named by Joseph H. Wales

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT--I have attempted to find other taxa that Wales described, and have not been able to locate others. As he is deceased and will not be describing any more taxa, having a category with one member is not necessary. Enwebb (talk) 16:17, 3 March 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:UK MPs who died in office

[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; content merged to Category:Politicians who died in office for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delegate as non-defining. Death is universal and simply dying while holding office is trivial. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_2#Category:Judges_who_died_in_office for a similar discussion. User:Namiba 13:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it defining (in the way Wikipedia defines the term) for a biography? Is it something that we would put in the introduction of an article? Category:Assassinated British MPs already exists for those like Jo Cox who were murdered BECAUSE of their position. Note that this category includes 8 biographies and the nominated category includes 776.--User:Namiba 17:45, 3 March 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:Zip-line

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 4#Category:Zip-line

Category:11-M conspiracy theorists

[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 11-M redirects to 2004 Madrid train bombings. "11-M" is used in Spain but not widely outside of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 3 March 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:Macedonian archeologists

[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 & rename. The possible ambiguity over place of origin or area of study may not have come up before (cf. Category:Historians by geographical subject area / Category:Historians by nationality), and it would need a more comprehensive nomination to diverge from the current pattern. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: both categories refer to the ame topic and the only differerence i s the spelling in archeology vs archaeology Robby (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 4 March 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:Dolores O'Riordan

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON for only 2 directly-related articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:23, 3 March 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:10¼ in gauge railways in England

[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 (and do not delete redirects). No prejudice against a broader nom concerning fractions in category names, at editorial discretion. - jc37 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just wanted to check that this is required for compliance with MOS:FRAC. If consensus is against this move, an exception should be noted there. I can imagine some readers seeing "¼" and trying to type "1/4" and being frustrated at the mismatch. There are other categories similarly named which would also need to be moved. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FRAC has this: "Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ [...] Exception: In special situations ...".
I worked with these titles a lot. Always thoug it was OK, but cannot find the right MOS now. (see Category:Track gauges by imperial unit). -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (sign 1h late)[reply]
  • Comment despite the existence of this and other track gauge categories with precomposed fraction characters in the name, the MediaWiki search engine finds no results when searching for ¾ (or ¼ or ½) in category space so cannot be used to judge prevalence. A Google search tells me that Category:7 ft ¼ in gauge locomotives and its sibling Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge locomotives exist, and I'd suggest these are treated the same as this one. Category:Lil' ½ Dead albums, Category:Ranma ½ (and several subcategories) would seem to be based on proper names and so are not directly comparable. Given google fails to find most of the track gauge categories with these characters (including none with ¾), we cannot be sure that the above is a complete list of other categories with these characters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good research, thx. And in absence of any countering MOS, convincing. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had an idea and downloaded the title dump and ran a few greps. Almost all the categories with pre-composed fraction characters are subcategories of Category:Track gauges by imperial unit, Category:Locomotives by gauge and Category:Ranma ½. The exceptions are *Category:The 2½ Pillars of Wisdom, Category:Wikipedians who like Ranma ½ and Category:Lil' ½ Dead albums. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of 77 categories containing a pre-composed fraction character as of the 1 March 2021 database dump
½
¼
¾
⅜
⅝
⅞

There are no categories with names containing ⅛ or any pre-composed third, fifth or sixth fraction characters.

Comment: About displaying. While having the proposed title like Category:10 1/4 in gauge, we can apply {{DISPLAYTITLE}}:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:10 <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> in gauge}} → title shows like: "Category:10 1/4 in gauge railways in England".
This is using the regular keyboard slash "/", not fraction slash "⁄" (as {{Frac}} does}}). -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 5 March 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:Wikipedia categories named after regions

[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. In case any consensus emerges later to restore the deleted similar category for US regions, they can be found here.[1] But at the moment there is neither a clear rationale for deletion, nor an explanation of how these might be useful. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a maintenance category populated by template. Duplicates parent's sub-categories and list categories. WP:PROJCATS prohibits these categories.
Followup to:
@RevelationDirect: as requested.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I give wide lattitude when editors come forward and write "I need these administrative categories because they help me improve the encyclopedia by allowing me to ..." Can you help me understand what administrative purpose they serve? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. There are a huge number of Wikipedia categories named after foo categories, mostly used to track WP:eponymous categories, which often are not themselves categorised (while the articles are). The practice is described at WP:CATMAIN. However, the situation is wholly messy in practice. Sorting this out would require wider discussion at a more central venue than CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. WP:EPONYMOUS explicitly states: "An eponymous category should have only the categories of its article that are relevant to the category's content." None of these categories would ever be on its main article, so they must not be on an eponymous category.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CfD is the central venue for this kind of discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on the categories, but just to address some of the policy statements above, I do not see where these are prohibited per WP:PROJCATS. Yes they are in mainspace, but they are "hidden", per that section. And a category does NOT need to be populated by a template to be considered an administrative category or a maintenance category. Automation is always treated as a convenience, never as a requirement. - jc37 23:51, 3 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 Friedrich Order

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Friedrich Order was a general purpose award from the German Kingdom of Württemberg although most of the recipients in these categories were from other German states. This award is generally mentioned in passing in articles for non-local recipients like Karl von Bülow, Wilhelm Heye and Alfred von Tirpitz. Interestly, people actually from Württemberg seem to be a mix of mentioning the award in passing or not at all like with Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg, Otto von Moser, Eberhard von Hofacker, and Friedrich von Gerok (officer). Neither group seems defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 3 March 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:Henry Hope Reed Award Laureates

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Henry Hope Reed Award is an interesting award for architecture that is given to non-architects which creates a diverse list including a poet, historian, preservationist, government official, philanthropist and landscape designer. The thing about an architectural award for non-architects is that it's non-defining: 1 article mentions this award in passing, 1 in the lede, and 7 not at all. The recipients are already listified here within the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 3 March 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:Congolese independence activists

[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) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, people in this category aren't clearly independence activists. The category is a hodgepodge of politicians in the early 1960s in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville), the Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) and regional politicians in the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Oculi, Fayenatic london, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a recurring issue with our loosey-goosey definition of activist. And to combine with motives. Were the folks who dumped tea into Boston Harbor American independence activists? They are viewed as patriots in the US, but could as easily be viewed as tax protestors (hence, the tea party movement with its anti-taxation program). Similarly, is Jefferson Davis a Confederate State of America independence activist - or just a traitor? Most of the early politicians of any country are retrospectively viewed as independent activists for that county's independence and most of these folks seem to be notable for their post-independence political roles. Why can't we just categorize them as such rather than try to fit a label "activist" which WP cannot even define properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 3 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_3&oldid=1073193131"