Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12[edit]

Category:Space police officers[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This falls under WP:NARROWCAT as its contents can be sorted into Category:Fictional police officers, and Category:Fictional astronauts with no real issues. Fictional astronauts already covers the science fiction part. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (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:Users who do not wish to receive talkbacks[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/rename. There is consensus to delete the category if Twinkle functionality is not impacted; otherwise, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who wish to not receive talkbacks. The category should remain as is until Twinkle is updated. Tracked: 405(non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following the parent hierarchy Category:Wikipedians. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that renaming this category will affect Twinkle. I haven't got time to look at addressing this now, but certainly this category should not be renamed until Twinkle has been fixed. A post on WT:TW might help. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category absolutely necessary in order for some sort of function related to talkbacks not showing up on these pages to work? If it is being used in such a way, can it detect a template as opposed to a user category instead? The bottom line is that it is not useful to group users by this preference in a category. It's useful information to know, but that can be accomplished on a notice on the userpage. To keep a category around implies the grouping of such users is beneficial to the encyclopedia, which I would posit there is not. My preference would be deletion, but if there's some sort of unavoidable usage of this category related to a bot's function that cannot be altered to use a template instead, then reluctant rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark, but only if Twinkle can be made to detect the use of {{No talkback}}. Alternatively, rename to Category:Wikipedians who wish to not receive talkbacks, to reflect an active preference ("wish to not receive") instead of a lack of preference ("do not wish to receive"). One who "do[es] not wish to receive talkbacks" could be either opposed to receiving them or neutral about receiving them, whereas "wish to not receive" conveys active opposition. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree your proposed rename is better, if deletion is ultimately not an option. VegaDark (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, great tweak! Would it be possible to further change this category into a positive statement? gidonb (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be ideal, but I'm not sure how to do it given the category is based on a negative characteristic. I think "who wish to not receive talkbacks" is as positive as it can be: "who wish" is positive, it just happens that the positive statement is about a negative preference ("to not receive talkbacks"). I'd certainly welcome other suggestions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @This, that and the other and Fayenatic london: What is your view on a possible deletion of this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it depends on the requirements of Twinkle. No one seems to have posted a question about this at WT:TW yet. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: The category name is hard-coded here. I'll let a dev comment on whether detecting {{no talkback}} directly instead of a category would break uses, such as where the template is transcluded indirectly to a user's talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JJMC89: Would you be willing to close this discussion? Regular admins are probably skipping this discussion because of the technical issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (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.

American track and field athletes by state[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, but editors are permitted to re-create "people" categories as parents where there are sufficient contents to make this useful. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:

The following states would be unchanged but have been reverse tagged to cover the alternatives:

Nominator's rationale: To have all the American "state" subcategories for track and field the same; using "athletes" not "people". Preferebly using "athletes" as most of the sports use "athletes" or similar eg baseball players, golfers (the exception is "ice hockey people"); (see eg. Category:sportspeople from California. Note that at present four states out of 21 use "athletes" and the remaining 17 use "people". Also there are separate subcategories for "sports coaches" I have tagged the four "athletes" subcategories for the four states for the reverse change so that both options are tagged and covered. Hugo999 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree--keep distinct with "people" as the parent of "athletes" Some category schemes have so many members that it makes sense to have categories for players, coaches, etc. E.g. look at Category:Baseball people. In the case of (again, e.g.) American football, there are persons who are in the field of American football who are not players such as team owners, announcers, etc. The question for me is if there are enough individuals to justify it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:American track and field coaches does not have state subcategories at present, so I would suggest that they go into that category and the appropriate subcategory of Category:American sports coaches by state e.g. Category:Sports coaches from Texas. Hugo999 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't enough articles about coaches to turn this into viable state categories. Koavf is right, but the easiest way to implement this is to rename the people categories to athletes as nominated and then recreate the people categories for miscellaneous people involved in track and field, such as coaches. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Adding other categories like owners etc etc won’t justify a separate category for “track and field people by state” (fewer owners of track and field teams than of American football or Baseball teams?). And other “by state” sportspeople categories eg Category:Golfers from California or Category:Soccer players from California are direct subcategories of Category:Sportspeople from California with no subcategories for "Golf people from California" etc. Hugo999 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and !vote - given the comments from various people above, wouldn't it be better to keep these categories and simply create subcategories of them for the athletes themselves? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As pointed out above by Marcocapelle there are not enough track and field coaches in Category:American track and field coaches (about 100) to justify a breakdown by state, and I don’t think there will be many “track and field” people apart from coaches (no “owners” ?). Perhaps after renaming the “track and field people” to “track and field athletes” for those “state” subcategories it may be apparent how many "track and people" people including coaches there are, and whether any separate "track and field coach" categories by state are required? Hugo999 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:19, 12 October 2017 (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:History of the Adal Sultanate[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 and delete as nominated. ℯxplicit 01:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as redundant category layers, in the end containing no more than three articles and one (battles) subcategory. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No conceptual problem with these type of categories but, when they're applied to such a small group of articles, it serves to break them up and hinder navigation rather than group them and aid navigation. No objection to recreating any category if it ever approaches 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was a relatively short-lived state, for which there is not enough content to require any splits. Category:Adal Sultanate is all we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly doesn't warrant WP:SMALLLCAT since there is much potential for future expansion. We can apply SMALLCAT only when it is a small period of history (or very undocumented), while Adal Sultanate existed for two centuries in late Middle Ages and early modern era and is well documented.GreyShark (dibra) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a conceptual problem here that everything about former countries is really history so this overlaps with the parents. (Some more prominent former countries will have articles discussing the history as a formal subject so this type of category can make sense in some cases but I don't see that here.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - previously there have been five articles in the Adal Sultanate categorization, but after September vote it was narrowed and now aimed to be entirely deleted. This is a clear case of emptying the categories and then claiming WP:SMALLCAT out of process. This has to stop - WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply on cases which can potentially be expanded into full trees, otherwise all new trees would be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 09:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September there was a merge proposal to get the remaining categories better populated. As already predicted in the former discussion, more merging is needed in order to get better populated categories. Merging categories can not, should not, lead to worse populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC):[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, the four nominated categories together contain only three articles and a subcat. Even while taking some growth into consideration, this is not going to lead to viable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There just aren't enough articles at this time to justify subdividing Category:Adal Sultanate in this manner, and these splits only hinder navigation. Similar to RevelationDirect, I have no objection to recreating some or all of these categories as more articles are created, though my threshold is quite a bit higher than just 5 articles—I think we should not look to split the main category further until it approaches a few tens/dozens of articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2017 (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 Version 0.5[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 00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Version 0.5 is a 10-year-old test release of a few thousand articles which were mirrored on January 1, 2007. At this point, these template-populated categories are historical, unneeded (see discussion), and anachronistic—categorizing Version 0.5 articles based on present-day article quality and importance ratings. A full list of articles included in Version 0.5 is available here, so no information will be lost due to deletion. (Category creator not notified: bot) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, pending an explanation from someone as to why retaining these categories would benefit the project, which there does not appear to be as the nom points out. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5 was not properly tagged. Wikipedia:Version 0.5 has also been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Question Admin categories need to serve a current (or future) function and these are clearly historical. Does implementing this require editing templates? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, {{V0.5}} and {{WP1.0}} will need to be edited. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as historic clutter. SilkTork (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Basically listify for historic record, only the list already exists. Remains deletion. gidonb (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (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/2017_October_12&oldid=1083677724"