Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:Tenzing Norgay relative[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Category:Tenzing Norgay relative

Category:People from Bandipora 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: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: C2D: Bandipore district Elli (talk | contribs) 19:26, 2 November 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:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Disregarded" has been suggested to mean intent. Renaming the category means it is solely concerned with what actually happened, whether due to driver actions, as at Wootton Bassett, or completely beyond the control of the driver, as at Stonegate. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest instead making the new name "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger" instead. Not all red signals mean the train must stop (and not necessarily all stop signals are red), and some allow for "stop and proceed" so I think this suggested wording is better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on the relevant article talk page (Talk:2021 Salisbury rail crash) with preference for the alternative "involving a signal passed at danger" as explained by the above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but my preference would be to Category:Railway accidents involving signal passed at danger. Rationale:: totally agree with nom's need to remove disregarded but agree with Trainsandotherthings's suggestion. The signal passed at danger corresponds to the SPAD acronym which is in common use the the UK for such incidents. I don't believe the "a" is necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Without the "a" it doesn't feel grammatical to me - either "involving a signal" or "involving signals". Given that there may only be one signal passed at danger, I prefer the former. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "... passed at danger" is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per Djm-leighpark, my preference would also be for Category:Railway accidents involving signal passed at danger. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per Thryduulf to include "a", preferring Category:Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger", as not all danger signals are red and vice versa. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger" - there are some old signals that do not even have coloured lights e.g. semaphores, and so this would be more accurate. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger", which is clearly the appropriate expansion of SPAD. "disregarded" implies fault by the driver, but there may be (rarely) reasons why the driver was unable to prevent the accident, despite his best efforts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger". Even if people who are not native speakers won't understand "at danger" at first sight. --Just N. (talk) 16:16, 9 November 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:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 1988 Canadian federal election[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. However, Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons contains overview articles and therefore has no consensus to delete. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: In the initial closure, Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons was deleted on account of not having any overview articles. However, it emerged that there were in fact overview articles that had never been placed in that category. To keep the closure consistent, the category was restored and populated in the same manner as Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons (which was also purged of non-overview articles). bibliomaniac15 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Several past CFD's on similar categories for other political parties (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) established a consensus that it is not desirable to categorize election candidates this specifically. Firstly, we don't even categorize sitting MPs for each individual session of Parliament they sat in, and there's no compelling reason to categorize non-winning candidates more specifically and narrowly than MPs. Secondly, unelected candidates for political office aren't notable for that at all, so a person will only have an article to file in any of these categories if they had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a political candidacy (e.g. having previously served as a provincial MLA or mayor of a major city), meaning that they aren't defined by each individual election they may have run in and lost. Thirdly, since people often run for office more than just once, this results in significant category bloat since each individual candidacy occasions another new category. Simply put, candidacy isn't significant enough to warrant subcategorizing them this granularly. (And yes, similar categories do still exist for some other political parties as well — but getting rid of them is an extended process, because there are too many to just batch them all together in one go.) Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all including targets -- In UK we do categorise MPs for each Parliament. Those elected should be categorised as MPs. It is well established that failed political candidates are NN (unless notable for other reasons) and should not have articles. It follows that we should not have categories for candidates. Possibly, unelected candidates who might be merged into Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada politicians etc, but we should certainly not have candidate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including targets per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Peterkingiron, excluding target because the target also contains overview articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 10 November 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:Facebook people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Category:Facebook people

American radio singers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. As most of the pages were already in the "American women/male singers" trees (mostly through the 20th century categories suggested by Fayenatic london), the remaining six were manually merged accordingly. ✗plicit 10:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Two categories for a distinction that isn't useful and is highly vulnerable to being very misunderstood. The categories were clearly intended to comprise people who performed live singing on old-time radio shows in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s, as they mainly feature people like Roy Acuff and Dolly Dawn — however, under these names they're extremely likely to mistakenly collect every singer who gets songs onto pop radio in 2021. But it's not worth renaming them to make the intentions clearer, either, because singers aren't really defined by the individual venues or platforms on which they have performed — by comparison, we do not have a parallel Category:American television singers for singers who were known for appearing on television variety shows or performing TV theme songs, nor do we have an established Category:Radio singers tree to parent these. It's essentially WP:PERFCAT: the people are defined by the genre of music they sang, not by the fact that they were sometimes standing in radio studios when they did it. (Not to mention that even in 2021, pop music promotion still sometimes entails doing live performances on radio shows like World Cafe or Q or Mountain Stage during the tour, meaning that even contemporary pop singers could still technically have to be added to the category even if it had a "live radio performance" clarifier added to it.) Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then how exactly do you propose keeping the stated purpose clear, so that people don't muddy it up with the Nicki Minajes and Maren Morrises and Billie Eilishes of 2021? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Airplay was important but was it defining?Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 12 November 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 detained in hospitals in the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Category:People detained in hospitals in the United Kingdom

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_2&oldid=1061702652"