Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8[edit]

Category:Cloud Atlas[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: dual upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To bring in line with WP category naming guidelines. Trivialist (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Clouds -- We have two articles Cloud Atlas (a class of book on clouds) and International Cloud Atlas the original one. I would question whether we really need this category at all. I see little scope for expansion, though I am not an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge to clouds and atlas with no objection to recreating if we get up to 5 or so articles. (If kept, support rename nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 11 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:Nelson and Tasman District geography stubs[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 and purge the articles from Nelson. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Nelson and Tasman District geography stubs to Category:Tasman District geography stubs

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:Renaissance artefacts[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has just been set up as an intermediary between "R art" and "R paintings" and "R sculpture". This is bad for several reasons: "artefacts" is a term from archaeology, but not art history, and it is doubtful it is even properly applied to paintings or manuscripts - the Sistine Chapel ceiling is not an "artefact" I would suggest. There is no need at all for a confusingly-named extra layer for readers to battle their way through. We do not have "artefact" categories elsewhere in art categories (unlike archaeology ones). I have restored the proper categorization of the only 2 contents, and this should just be deleted (oh, he's still adding). He has also set up Category:Renaissance works, which is an appropriate umbrella category, though he initially added things to this at much too high a level. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Renaissance works. This would be an appropriate parent to art, sculpture and manuscripts. Artefact refers to something made by art (skill), but it is not useful to use it for a parent in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 10 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:Television series by Castle Rock Entertainment[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need The Castle Rock category, Warner Bros. Television now owns it now, so a merger will work, since the Castle Rock category does not make any sense. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The shows were produced by Castle Rock Entertainment. There's no reason to list shows by their distributor, since that is subject to frequent change with mergers and acquisitions. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Warner may own the series, but they did not create them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No more Oppose votes on my mergers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The voters get to decide how they vote, not you. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 13 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:People of the Edwardian era[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) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the Edwardian era is only from 1901 to 1910 or slightly beyond, we don't categorize biographies by a mere decade because many people were notable for a much longer period than a decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I created the category in 2010, it was because category Category:Edwardian era was full with biographical articles and it needed diffusing. Has this changed? Dimadick (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I checked a sample of the articles in this category and all were in more suitable categories (e.g. Category:20th-century English painters). A note should be added to Category:Edwardian era telling users not to place biographical articles in that category, but to use century-occupation categories. DexDor (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I was surprised how much content there was in this. We do not normally categorise people by each decade in which they operated. Even if one regards the period as 1901-14 (ending with the outbreak of WWI), this is a\ much shorter period than a typical life. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too short a time to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 14 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:Economic engineering[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) 00:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Category:Business economics per WP:SMALLCAT and because the two articles don't have any specific relationship with each other. It's doubtful whether an upmerge to the other two parent categories is desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 8 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:Irma Black 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
The Irma Black Award is an award for children's books issued by Bank Street college. Of the 9 people in this category, not a single 1 even mentions this award. If you're looking for a poster child for a non-defining award this is it. And this grouping doesn't appear to be factually accurate; the award appears to be given to books not people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Sarakrolewski as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Children's literature. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i have updated the 9 people articles, they now all have this award listed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING and all the usual reasons why this is better done as a list. DexDor (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- It is not necessary to listify as there is a list of sorts in the main article. However, it may be useful to create a redirect to it as Irma Black Award. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is award is non-defining to the recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-WP:DEFINING. While a certain very rarefied class of top-level literary awards — the ones where winning the award results in them routinely being covered as "Pulitzer-winning author John Smith" or "Booker-winning author Jane Jones" or "Nobel-winning author Alice Munro" thereafter — get to have categories like this, every literary award in existence does not automatically get one just because it exists. And per WP:CLN, every list of topics does not automatically get a matching category to group the same topics already included in the list either (lists and categories can coexist in some circumstances, but there's no requirement for them to always coexist in every circumstance.) The list in the article is sufficient, and I agree with Peterkingiron that the list's title should be created as a redirect (in fact, that's the very next thing I'm going to do after I save this comment) — but this award isn't of that Pulitzer/Booker/Nobel class where the award itself almost literally becomes part of the writer's name for the rest of their career, so a category for its winners isn't justified. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 14 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:Members of the Singapore Women's Hall of Fame[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) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Singapore Women's Hall of Fame is a virtual only Hall of Fame that launched in 2014. All the women it honors are indeed notable: for instance Lee Choo Neo was Singapore's first female doctor. But it's hard to see how someone who died in 1947 can be defined by a web site praising them in 2014. Even for women who lived to receive this online honor, the nature of a Hall of Fame is that it recognizes people who have already achieved fame. The contents of this category are already listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified The Squirrel Conspiracy as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Singapore. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_8&oldid=1074817197"