Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Category:The Daily Show correspondents[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A similar category was deleted in 2014: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_11#Category:The_Daily_Show_correspondents_and_contributors. This fails WP:OC#PERF. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2016 (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 were cremated[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 18:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If not fully populated this category has no useful purpose, but if fully populated will include most of the population of the world (and approaching 100% of the population in some cultures). Pointless bloat with no more apparent purpose than Category:People with ten fingers; I struggle to imagine any reader ever having a reason to refer to this category, and I also struggle to imagine any circumstance in which it will ever be possible to keep it up-to-date.  ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the low points of wikipedia is that such as this is even able to be created Govindaharihari (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely agree with the nominator. I'll also add that funeral arrangements are a private family matter, not something that should be considered notable in an encyclopaedic article. Personally, unless there's a good reason for it, I don't feel this should ever be mentioned at all let alone made into a category. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peteb16, I can see that there will be occasions when it might be appropriate to mention funeral arrangements in a biography; if someone were a devout member of a religion opposed to cremation, but nonetheless chose to be cremated, that would potentially be noteworthy. That most certainly does not extend to those people currently listed in this category, an apparently random selection of people such as Mahatma Gandhi, Kirsty MacColl and David Bowie, all of whom were members of cultures in which not being cremated would be more noteworthy. ‑ Iridescent 04:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Iridescent. Agreed and thank you for your response. I was aware there may be exceptions, I couldn't think of any at the time I wrote my comment. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment I can see how this was created because we do all sort of non-defining categorization based on death arrangements as listed in unreliable obituaries. This is one of many non-defining death categories and should be deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete and cremate. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment After seeing your points, I have realised the error of my ways in creating this category. Debates and friendly arguments are a good thing to learn from and this discussion is no exception. I only created this category because stupid me didn't know how common cremation is in certain parts of the world. I thought some people would find it interesting and I found the category on Simple English Wikipedia, so I decided to export it to the main Wikipedia. Just so you know, when creating the page, I had no intention to vandalise Wikipedia at all (not even accidentally) - I was only trying to be helpful. I understand and agree with the points made by Iridescent, Peteb16 and RevelationDirect. I have decided that it would be OK with me to delete the page because I understand how it can be seen as irrelevant and useless to some. Go ahead, delete it, I won't care and I won't be upset. Moral of the story - Don't try and export Simple English categories to the main Wikipedia. Lembowman (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lembowman. Please don't be disheartened by this, you obviously weren't to know. Its always a learning curve for all of us. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a defining factor of a subject's biography. There are cases where funeral arrangements are notable, like people interred in for example a national pantheon or national military graveyard, but this is not one of them. Cremation is near universal in India (where a fifth of the world's population live) and in most Protestant countries at least. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2016 (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:Tenements in Poland[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. There's no consensus for or against recreating as a category within the Category:Apartment buildings tree, but currently this category contains a single article, so there's nothing "lost" by going with the majority option to delete here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, it entirely overlaps with Category:Buildings and structures on Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For Different Reasons. The main article is Kamienica in Polish Wikipedia. Based on the lovely pictures, I don't think that word translates well into the very derogatory English "Tenement". RevelationDirect (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection against recreation of the category when there are a handful of articles about notable apartment buildings in other Polish cities. Then the category in Bygdoszcz can be made a subcategory of it. However I don't expect too much room for expansion, when looking at the modest size of Category:Apartment buildings, many apartment buildings won't be notable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but heritage listed ones often will be (see WP:GEOFEAT), and there are a hell of a lot of listed apartment buildings in Poland! The reason that so many Bygdoszcz buildings have articles is that an enthusiastic editor in Bygdoszcz has created them (many of them should actually be deleted, in my opinion). However, that doesn't mean this category doesn't have substantial room for expansion, especially as part of an established category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (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:List of British television programmes[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: empty and redirect to Category:Lists of British television series. There wasn't clear consensus on where to redirect to, so further discussion on that point may be useful, but this at least enacts the consensus on emptying and getting rid of this as its own category. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improperly named, and duplicates a myriad of existing British TV related categories. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Merge into Category:Lists of British television series (and Lists, should be plural) Hugo999 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title should be retained as a redirect to Category:Lists of British television series — which is a category for articles which are lists, not a way to make lists by categorizing articles which are about individual shows. But since most of the contents here are of the latter type, not the former, the contents should not be recategorized into the target. Purge the category, and redirect the title to the target category without recatting the purged contents. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the category was only very recently created (by mistake), so why maintain a duplicate title? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Edokter: we often keep redirects for names that editors are liable to put onto articles again. In this case I agree that it was created by someone who did not understand that "list" means something different from "category" in Wikipedia, so IMHO it would be useful to redirect it to Category:British television programmes. – Fayenatic London 07:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bearcat is right, there is no need to merge (I.e. recategorise the contents). The category was added to the member pages without removing another, see [1]. The category's creator has acknowledged the mistake on his talk page. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty and redirect per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2016 (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:Soviet state establishments[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:Soviet state institutions. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word establishments in the category name is confusing, in this category we clearly have government organizations. The proposed name fits in Category:Government agencies though I'm open to other suggestions. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 17:25, 9 April 2016 (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:Pest insects biological control insects[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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cumbersome name currently gives an impression of two separate insect groups. As long as those insects are used to control pest insects, new title might clarify what's going on. Brandmeistertalk 15:15, 9 April 2016 (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:Muslim philosophers[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, without prejudice to a future nomination to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as the two categories have nearly the same scope. The difference is, probably, that the target category may include non-Muslim Islamic philosophers, which would make it more inclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge - I do not care which. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Just a sidenote: Muslim and Islamic are synonymous when used as an adjective. I think the "more inclusive" category is actually Philosophers of Islam. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Agree that it's not the best example. But I can't imagine that the study of Islam philosophy is exclusively done by Muslims, against the background of the growing globalisation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps... I'm now also considering now that a Muslim philosopher doesn't have to be a philosopher of Islam, he or she can also be studying ancient Greek philosophy for example. As you notice, I'm quite hesitant about combining someone's religion with someone's occupation - except of course when it is obvious like with clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2016 (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:Vietnamese men writers[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 as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is in keeping with other similar categories for writers of different nationalities. Liz Read! Talk! 11:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can certainly see the rationale - it is the same as other nationalities. What led, I think, to me creating this anomalous situation was trying to be consistent with the female equivalent category which isn't called female writers, but women writers. Could/should that also be renamed?
Icarusgeek (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both, simply because it is grammatically wrong. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2016 (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.

Old Swiss Confederacy[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 all as proposed and delete the resulting empty categories. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more year categories to be merged
After the above merge, the following categories will become empty and thus can be deleted:
container categories becoming empty
Nominator's rationale: merge years to century level, since the Old Swiss Confederacy does not have sufficient content to decently fill up year or decade categories. After merging to century level, the best populated category of all will become Category:15th-century establishments in the Old Swiss Confederacy with 13 articles but that's really exceptional. Despite all this merging, even most century categories will still be quite small. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all for accessibility. The 1330s, for instance, often contain just one article and lead to redundant clicking just to discover that inside. Brandmeistertalk 15:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle Support all -- This is another case of thin threads of categories, which are a hindrance to navigation. However, I would question whether the parent for categories after 1499 should be Holy Roman Empire ones, when the Confederacy had de facto independence, though technically subject to the nominal Suzerainty of HRE. I would suggest a "Europe" target for that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I wouldn't have a problem to have the upmerge to years in Europe (instead of years in Holy Roman Empire) started after 1499 instead of started after 1648. Surprisingly there is nothing about the year 1499 in this category tree yet. I'll add these events directly to the 15th century category now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2016 (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:Books by Carlos Eduardo Taddeo[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main subject (author) has no article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo (rapper). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the author of a book is its paramount defining characteristic. Oculi (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete too few members Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (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:Gold medal awards[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 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
These are awards that have the word "gold" in them whether we would think of them as true first place awards in their field or not. The category lumps together an English dog award, an American sculpture award, an Australian aviation award, an Italian military award and a Swedish sports award. The awards are not neccesarilly made out of gold and most do not have a corresponding silver and bronze award. These category contents are already listified in a nice article here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Sionk as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the basis "Gold medal" is a widely understood (and used) name for the highest level award in a particular field - as RevelationDirect suggests, from sports to art to pets to the military. It's not simply a random name, as the examples are in WP:SHAREDNAME. From my understanding of Wikipedia's history, lists were used before the introduction of categories as a means of organising articles. It seems back to front to create a list and then use it as a justification to delete a category. Sionk (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, these awards are given for being the best as the name implies, but awards for being the 7th best are rare so maybe my concern is more WP:NONDEFINING. What makes these awards different than all the non "gold" awards that are also given out for being the best? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2016 (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/2016_April_9&oldid=1085823589"