Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:Privately held companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada[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 to both Category:Privately held companies based in Nevada and Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Privately held companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There doesn't need to be a separate category for private companies based in Las Vegas if there is already a general one. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:36, 7 February 2012 (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:Maryland Route 200[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Maryland Route 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The other articles were all merged into the parent, leaving a category populated by a single article. I would say that this is a textbook case of over-categorization. Imzadi 1979 → 12:45, 7 February 2012 (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:Disney Legends honorees[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disney Legends honorees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has been created and deleted on four previous occasions for being non-defining. See the deletion log for Category:Disney Legends. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD, as non-defining. (This meets the speedy deletion criterion G4, but I don't recommend speedy deletion in this case because the only previous deletion discussion was on 23 January 2008, and the 3 subsequent deletion were all G4 speedies. After 4 years, I think it's appropriate to test consensus again, because consensus can change). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was deleted for such stupid reasons like "per nom" and other nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.184.92 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per nom" means "per nominator", and indicates that the editor supports the rationale set out by the nominator. It is nonsense only if the nominator's original rationale was nonsense.
    More importantly, do you offer any positive reason for keeping this category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of hall of fame categories on Wikipedia, why is the Disney hall of fame any different.--124.186.184.92 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD, as non-defining, and per many precedents. Oculi (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the general rule is no award category. 124.186.184.92|124.186.184.92 your argument is "other stuff exists" which does not work. Over time there have been attempts to delete various award categories, and many have succeeded. The structure of wikipedia makes it much easier to create than to delete categories. I often have wondered if there might be a way to fix this problem, but for now it means that we have lots of categories that are not in line with the rules for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2012 (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 by credential[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 at CfD 2012 February 29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by credential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is a sub-optimal method of organizing Wikipedians by expertise. It consists primarily of container categories that function as an intermediate layer between profession user categories, such as Category:Wikipedian accountants, and credential user categories, such as Category:Wikipedians with CA designations; the only contents which do not fall under this label are two categories nominated below and two categories which are otherwise categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Comment - Actually, I think the certifications can be way more specific and therefore more useful than the occupation titles. The English Wikipedia is NOT solely the American Wikipedia. And I think it would show bias to suggest that an occupation title in one location is the same as an occupation title in some other location. Honestly, these vary even by company and corporation. And good luck defining a "systems engineer" between different corporations. And this doesn't even get involved in the worthlessness of the word "programmer". where that could be anyone typing in BASIC from a magazine to a systems architect of some kind, and beyond, depending on company definitions, and really the time period in question as well. The closest to standard "might" be health professionals, due to certain international standards, but I wouldn't make any guarantees even on those. The only reason I am striking the reverse merge suggestion is that I would guess that there are those in each of the above categories who are NOT credentialed, and so by reverse merging we'll be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not of the opinion that we should not have the certifications categories (I've actually not formed an opinion yet), and my goal with this nomination is only to change how we organize them – by using the existing and relatively well-developed 'professions' category tree instead of the 'credentials' tree. My perspective came from considering the question, "Would an editor seeking the expertise, resources or knowledge of an accountant, for example, start by searching a category of professions or one of credentials, or would she benefit from locating an accountant with a particular designation exclusive of all other accountants?" -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Though I dunno. There's a difference between a podiatrist and gastroenterologist. And a difference between a corporate tax lawyer and a criminal lawyer. Though I'd agree that there might be a point where specific might be too specific, I'm not entirely convinced of that per the exception stated at WP:OC#SMALL. (And again, we're dealing with what our presumptions of what these occupations entail.) - jc37 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, and a strong case probably could be made for splitting several of the well-populated professions categories (Category:Wikipedian engineers seems like a good example). The problem in each case, of course, is that the split must occur naturally – e.g., users must identify themselves as tax lawyers or criminal lawyers before we can split out Category:Wikipedian tax lawyers and Category:Wikipedian criminal lawyers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes and no. As so many of these sorts of cats are populated simply by userboxes, I would be surprised if there aren't some specific ones to re-target from broad to specific... - jc37 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Userboxes/Profession, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Certifications, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Expertise, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Military, just to pick a few. - jc37 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know why we keep these categories. I seriously doubt its value in terms of collaboration especially since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The potential for abuse seems much greater than the potential for collaborative work. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wholly disagree. I don't like bias for degrees over experience/knowledge - or vice versa, for that matter. (We're all Wikipedians here, regardless of background, after all.) And while we WP:AGF, I also remember the controversy with a certain very well-respected Wikipedian editor claiming professional degrees that he apparently didn't have. So with all that (and more) in mind, I would be fine with the whole occupation tree deleted. But until that time, I'd like to see as much vagueness and ambiguity removed from such cats, and move towards something as concrete and clear as possible. - jc37 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think specifying a user's specific credential in a given field is particularly helpful information for purposes of collaboration. If said credential is notable enough for its own page, then the talk page of said credential would be a preferable collaboration environment. If such users are sought out for information regarding their field, we run in to the problem of original research. While I agree that someone with a particular credential (and more broadly in a particular field of work) might have more of an inclination to go out and find sources and/or have better access to sources to add information to an article, categorizing those who only have "credentials" in a particular area excludes others who may be just as inclined to find sources but happen to not have said credential, but merely an interest in the field. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you are referring to only credentials? or all occupation cats in general? - jc37 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that same logic applies to all occupation cats (or most, at least - I could think of an exception for occupations where the WMF might possibly seek out people for something). VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree. but until such time as such a nomination, I prefer the credential ones over the occupation ones, for my reasons above. What is your preference? - jc37 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure. For the below ones merging made sense because there was only one category for each, for these others there's quite a few subcategories which means a merge would put quite a few groups into one big category. I think my preference would be to discuss this on a category by category basis since some credentials/groups might possibly have different arguments regarding a merge to their prospective field. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a category-by-category approach, as in the two cases below, would be the most prudent; eliminating the nominated container categories would be a step in that direction since it would permit consideration of each 'credential' category in the context of its profession parent category rather than in the context of a generalized 'Wikipedians by credential' tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reflection regarding this, I realized that people with a particular "certification" does not necessarily mean they currently actually practice in their field, so I would oppose merging (the noms below already closed so can't change my vote, but oh well). Instead, I think we should delete all Wikipedians by credential categories, or rename all to "Wikipedians interested in x" with x being the field the certification is in. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but that applies just as well to the occupation cats. A nurse isn't necessarily a practicing nurse. But the person may still self-identify as a nurse.
    It seems to me that we're splitting a fine hair here. What we're dancing around I think is that both trees should be deleted, and we're each talking about which is the lesser of the two.
    At this point, I oppose the merge, but would support deletion. A user page notice of what certifications a person has should be enough. As I look at Certification, I think that it could include any thing which gives a certificate (including an eclair-eating expert), and that suggests to me incredible category bloat. And besides that - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a strong case against the certifications categories, but I disagree about Category:Wikipedians by profession. From my perspective, it does not really matter whether a particular user is a current (practicing) or former (non-practicing) accountant or engineer. I consider the professions user categories to be useful only insofar as they are indicative of above-average familiarity with or knowledge of a particular subject; in this context, there is not much difference between practicing and non-practicing professionals. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe we should be encouraging people to claim qualifications in an official-looking way without a system to check on the veracity of those claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure falsely claiming to be a nurse is any different than falsely claiming to be an RN so I don't see a big distinction betweening allowing one than another. (Maybe the licensing boards own the credentials so it presents less of a legal issue.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all including all sub categories. These categories are all created by templates, the users might not even be aware that they are in these category. Many years back we had the great userbox purge, which caused much commotion but no ill effects when most of them and their associated categories went. I'm quite sure the same would happen here. Do we have any examples of actual use? I've a bunch of skill and profession template on my userpage and never been contacted because of them. If I have a question about accountancy I'll more likely go to the wiki-project rather look through a category full of users who left many years ago. So its basically comes down to Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories - Categories that are overly narrow in scope.--Salix (talk): 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (including subcats), do not merge the credential cats per our discussion above. (And noting that the target occupation cats weren't tagged). Though with the exception of the nursing ones (RN and LPN). I think that these are different than the rest and that a reverse merge to the more specific subcats (though maybe with a better name) would be more helpful than less in that case, so I would like to list (relist) that in a separate nom. (Note that both the LPN and RN subcats are empty atm.) - jc37 19:20, 27 February 2012 (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 with CHRP designations[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians with CHRP designations to Category:Wikipedian human resources workers
Nominator's rationale: This category does not appear to fulfill a collaborative function beyond that which is served by its parent category. The CHRP designation is available to human resources professionals in Canada, making this category is extremely limited in geographic scope, but also is not uncommon, with about half of the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations' members having the designation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom while noting my misgivings about the majority of the "Wikipedians by skill/profession" tree in the nomination above, merging these cuts some of the fat. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (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 with ABFDE certification‎[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians with ABFDE certification‎ to Category:Wikipedian questioned document examiners
Nominator's rationale: This sparsely populated user category is for professional questioned document examiners who have been certified by American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, an organization which serves Canada, Mexico and the United States. It is not useful, in my opinion, to limit this already sparsely populated category to three countries only; the category should be, instead, opened to QDEs in all countries and made a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This user category is sparsely used (presently only by myself) because 1) it isn't known to many people and 2) there aren't many ABFDE-certified examiners, period. I had hoped that more ABFDE users would 'join' in time but that hasn't happened. Others might eventually add to the category but, in reality, there are only a few hundred ABFDE-certified examiners in total (it is a difficult certification to obtain and most QDEs won't ever try) so it would never be a large number. If a sparsely-used category is unacceptable, go ahead and delete/rename it. — RB Ostrum. 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unacceptable per se but it would likely be a more useful resource for other editors if it was less restrictive and more populated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom while noting my misgivings about the majority of the "Wikipedians by skill/profession" tree in the nominations above, merging these cuts some of the fat. 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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:Media based on actual events[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media based on actual events to Category:Works based on actual events
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Not sure how we missed this one, but all these "media" are creative works, per parent category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (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:Cold War by year[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: conditional merge. This merge cannot be completed unless the categories are nominated and merged. Please do that, and then if that nomination passes, this can go forward as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cold War by year to events by year categories
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to the events by year category. OK, I got here with some TfT creations where the list was expanded by another editor. For the most part, this tree is not well populated. What it contains is a random collection of things. The formation of groups, talks, treaties, organizations established, people and so on. The big issue is what does this subcategory mean? One could argue that almost every event during the cold war belongs here. So it might be easier and more accurate to include the events by year in Category:Cold War for the period of the Cold War. If consensus supports this upmerge, I'll add all of the subcategories to the nomination. It may also be wise to upmerge all of these to Category:Cold War in addition to the suggestion on the nomination. So I'm open to options. Discussion on. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (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/2012_February_7&oldid=1083678249"