Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 3 September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Category:Descendants of Abraham Godwin[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 Category:Godwin family (United States), without prejudice to any future nomination of the merge target (which was created while this discussion was ongoing). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a descendant of a notable individual is not necessarily a defining aspect per WP:DEFINING or WP:COPDEF. We should only categorize people by descendants/families if the family itself is notable, or if one's notability stems in part from being a member of a family. Unlike members of such notable families as the Kennedy family or Obama family, the entries in this category do not gain additional noteworthiness just for their last name. Everyone has an ancestor, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Animalparty, I believe changing the title to something like "The Godwin's of New Jersey" would suffice. I can confirm Parke Godwin got his notability because Abraham Godwin Jr got his notability from Abraham Godwin and he got his notability from Abraham Godwin. I can only assume Parke Godwin got a notability boost from Park Godwin as well. I can also confirm that Richard Godwin used his heritage to get himself places as well. Frank Godwin's father was cheif editor of the Washington Star(I believe he is also notable enough for a wikipedia page, we'll see), and his father fought in the Civil War and his father was Abraham Godwin. The Godwin family is very signifigant in the state of New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C. Just because one of them hasn't been elected President doesn't mean the family isn't notable and hasn't been noticed by many. CHGodwin (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced this is working as a functional notable family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Animalparty!, I want to add that the Obama/Kennedy analogy isn't correct. Not everybody in those categories has the same notable last name. Also, does Justice Kennedy get any extra notability for his last name, and if he does, does he belong in the Kennedy category? Does Kennedy? It just doesn't work, and honestly I'm not convinced there is a single Wikipedia policy stating why this Category should be deleted. If you could point me to a clear 'Family/House Notability Gauge' I feel the decision could be rationalized. But as it stands, I'm seeing random opinions and irrational analogies - Nothing based in actual Wikipedia Policy. It may be the case that my thoughts are just an opinion, and if that is the case, please, explain what I am missing. Thank you. - CHGodwin (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChangeCategory:Goodwin family
  • Comment - That is not the same family as this one but it does seem to be the same level of notorioty to donote a Category. CHGodwin (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have disallowed Descendants of Queen Victoria some years ago, most of whom are notable. Most of the subjects categorised will not be notable due to their connection with a notable (but relatively minor) NJ politician. We have to draw a line somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:The Godwin Family which seems to serve the same purpose. I am not convinced yet of the need for deletion of both these categories, perhaps a batch nomination with multiple families and clearer deletion criteria may help. Note that the merge target is up for speedy rename but that hasn't been processed yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/rename "descendants" cat - Queen Victoria is a bit of a unique WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there's been a lot of serious study of the political effects of her descendants ending up on the thrones of what, 7 different countries? And there's also been a lot of tracing genetic diseases through her lineage. But for sheer political influence, Victoria is sui generis. Below Victoria there seems to be three separate classes. There's the cases where i) the family is definitely a "thing" that has books and articles written about them as a clan - the Kennedys are the classic example, but qv also the Darwins and Freuds. And I guess a lot of aristocracy fall into this category in that they tend to be discussed under the banner of their title as a whole. The Godwins seem to be an example of ii) where it may be convenient to gather several articles together of relatives, but it's not particularly a thing in the wider world. And then there's iii), the logical conclusion where even a husband and wife, or father and daughter get their own category. I'd be pretty ruthless in applying WP:SMALLCAT to get rid of iii)'s, and I'm in two minds about class ii) like the Godwins, I can see the arguments both ways.Le Deluge (talk) 14:52, 11 September 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:Las Vegas Lights FC stadiums[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A new team, that hasn't even played yet, hardly needs a category for it's stadiums, seeing as it (will) only has one. If they move repeatedly in the future then a category might be necessary, but not until. 194.28.127.53 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 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:African-American criminals[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: speedy delete (criterion G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and salt to prevent recreation without consensus to do so (e.g. via deletion review).
I am closing this discussion on procedural grounds because I did not find the policy arguments to be sufficiently compelling/definitive. The intersection of "African-American" and "criminal" is verifiable for specific individuals, but verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for categorization and, therefore, not really at issue here. The central issue is whether the intersection is a defining characteristic for categorization purposes and also "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". I find the assertion that this intersection is not a "distinct and unique cultural topic" unconvincing in light of the existence of Race and crime in the United States, Criminal stereotype of African Americans, Statistics of incarcerated African-American males, and extensive literature on African-American crime, African-American experience with the criminal justice system, or some similar topic. On the other hand, when it comes to categorizing individual people, no arguments were offered that this categorization is defining on an individual basis. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up note: This result does not precldue the creation of a topic category; however, it would not be appropriate to categorize individual biographies in such a category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic and probably a non-notable intersection (WP:OCEGRS). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, the fact that James Earl Ray was of Irish or just European descent probably had something to do with his beliefs in white supremacy.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well sure it was but we have Category:American white supremacists to directly categorize his beliefs and he can still be in a non-criminal Irish American category. It's less clear that Larry Fay's Irish-ness had anything to do with his rum running and he would go right in the same Irish criminal category. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very relevant to the studies of criminology and sociology. The ethnicity of high profile criminals is often discussed in the media and academic circles along with criminals as a whole.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually have major problems with any person being in Category:American criminals directly. While comparied to the number of those convicted, the number later exonerated might be high, it is noticeable. Anyway, do we want a category that groups O. J. Simpson, Kwame Kilpatrick and Martin Luther King, Jr just because they all were conviced of some crime (even though the crimes Dr. King was accused of are no longer crimes). Does this even make sense?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I've removed Martin Luther King from this category for the moment, that should address some of your concerns.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rationale for removing King? He was convicted of a crime, which makes him a criminal. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some kind of distinction should be made between people whose crimes would not be considered crimes today.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be very, very confused about King, the civil rights movement, and civil disobedience, the intentional violation of unjust laws. Violating the law is, and always will be, considered a crime. That makes most activists ipso facto criminals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a terrible and unworkable idea. He was definitely a criminal. Just because laws change (I would hope getting more just), that doesn't retroactively change his status as a criminal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which goes to show how unreasonable a category with the title "criminals" is. M. L. King was convicted of a crime, therefore he was a criminal. I personally think Coleman Young was a much worse criminal, but sadly for Detroit only his underlings and not him ever got actually convicted. Fortunately justice caught up with Kwame Kilpatrick. However I do not see how Kilpatrick (although his true downfall came when he assaulted the police, complete with speaking ill of a black female police officer who had as her police partner a white officer with the name of White, but he is currently serving time in federal prison on corruption charges) is at all like O. J. Simpson who went to jail on some shaky and highly questionable kidnapping charges. We can't retroactively say people were or were not criminals. If we start that, we will have categorization of the many men in 19th-century America who at age 30 married 15-year-old women as criminals on the grounds of statutory rape because we are applying our laws to them. I do not want to even start such a nightmare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 10 September 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:Comedians by city[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/delete the Bristol and Willemstad categories, no consensus on the remainder. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats: Category:Comedians from Birmingham, West Midlands, Category:Comedians from Bristol, Category:Comedians from Glasgow, Category:Comedians from Karachi, Category:Comedians from Liverpool, Category:Comedians from London, Category:Comedians from Manchester, Category:Comedians from Melbourne, Category:Comedians from Mexico City, Category:Comedians from New York City, Category:Comedians from Sydney, Category:Comedians from Toronto, Category:Comedians from Willemstad
Nominator's rationale: /Merge' with all appropriate parent categories (e.g. Category:Scottish comedians and Category:Entertainers from New York City). This scheme isn't really necessary for comedians as such a sub-niche profession (rather than something very high-level and broad like "scientists" or "politicians") and we have very few categorized like this. The only category that has many entries is the one for New York City which can easily be merged to its parent Category:Comedians from New York (state) without creating an excessively large parent category. (The only exception is Hong Kong which has a substantially different administrative and cultural history so that it has a pretty independent scheme of categorization apart from China proper.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominators rational is flawed. Comedy is not a niche profession. Comedy is not necessarily for everybody, but it does have a sizeable fan base. There is the styles of comedy that does cater to a niche part of the fan base. The only thing I'd say is merge the Curacao entertainment categories to more populated categories as they only have one article in it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @Koavf: You are not going to have categories for every city. Unless there are enough entries to populate a categories than that is different. Alternatively, you can put them in the appropriate state/province/country comedian category. I would be okay with that. I explained in my vote that stand up comedy is not a niche career. You used the term wrong. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @Fishhead2100: You said to keep all but then just now you said that you are in favor of deleting and merging up the geographic category. Which one is it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: Okay, then I guess your !vote is "put them in the appropriate state/province/country comedian category" which is exactly what I proposed. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You can clearly see what I voted for and that wasn't it. It's sad that I have to spell it out. What's even sadder is that you're twisting what I said to make it fit what you want. That's pretty shady on your part. What it means is if does happen, I won't lose sleep over it. That doesn't change my vote at all. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: Dude, chill out. You said directly contradictory things and I honestly have no idea what you're going for here. You can act in bad faith as tho I'm somehow "twisting" your words or you can just explain what you mean because a plain reading is impossible. You're getting awfully defensive with some user essay that is unrelated and acting like I'm some bad guy. Calm down and take a step back: is it really useful to have categories of comedians by city with two members? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 7 September 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:Multiplayer-only video games[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the CfD here, it would also make sense to upmerge this category as well. It is unnecessarily confusing. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have just been included in the CfD you linked too. But for the official and technical record, I support this nomination. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically it was, as I mentioned it in the nomination, I guess it needs to be written out in official format to qualify.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The -only suffix isn't necessary. We already have a separate category for games that feature both single-player and multiplayer so we don't need to make a distinction between single-player and single-player-only. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:16, 16 September 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:Black British electronic musicians[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) 06:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity is not recognized (or at least not significant) on Wikipedia. The current pages should be added to Category:British electronic musicians. — Zawl 13:21, 4 September 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:New York hip hop[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: alternative split to Category:East Coast hip hop (or Category:East Coast hip hop groups) and Category:New York City hip hop. Category:East Coast hip hop musicians‎ already contains Category:Rappers from New York (state), and that only leaves The Lox as not from/about NT City. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category looks like precisely the reason that the state needs to be disambiguated: One of the parent categories is a New York City category, and one of its subcats is a state-level category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 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:Wikipedians who are against Donald Trump[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 10:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It groups users by dislikes, on the basis of irrelevant likes, by advocacy of a position and may be divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive 135.23.232.202 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The category name was changed (which shouldn't have been done in the middle of a discussion), so this will need fresh eyes. @Lugnuts, Roman Spinner, and TheStrayDog: notifying those who may have missed this development.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear case of categorization by dislike and by advocacy in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. There is not a single situation where this category could contribute to collaboration, unless we count facilitating inappropriate canvassing of users of a particular political leaning. Regardless of the name ("who are against" or "concerned about"), this is not an interest category, but a userbox-populated grouping based on opposition to the policies or person of Donald Trump, and therefore I oppose merging this category into Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics. Merging would only flood the latter category with people who expressed dislike of/opposition to Trump, not any interest in collaborating on topics related to U.S. politics. Stating the equivalent of "I don't like Donald Trump" no more implies an interest in U.S. politics than stating "I don't like Justin Bieber" implies an interest in music. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category and all similar categories mentioned above per Black Falcon. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unobtrusive and, especially after the recent name change, not particularly divisive either. Could be argued to fall under "Categories which group users by interest in a subject". The WP:USERCAT page is not taken literally. "Category:Wikipedians who play video games" is used as an example of an inappropriate category, but Category:Wikipedians interested in video games is huge. In practice, Wikipedia categories do not shy away from support of certain people/groups (see "Wikipedians for [Trump/Hillary/Sanders/BLM etc.]"), so why is this worse? I can fully understand that userboxes and categories shouldn't be provocative and shouldn't cater to hurtful views but in this case ("case" meaning a political figure and not a controversial belief - *cough*) I don't see how "against" is any worse than "for". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and users are advised on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics that inclusion of some of said userboxes might bother others. It seems like this category now has. For the record, me being in said category was inadvertant; it happened when I added the "climate change concern" tag. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you mean by "[t]he WP:USERCAT page is not taken literally"—it is a guideline and should be taken like any other guideline. Regarding the various "Wikipedians for" categories, these are fairly recent creations from 2016 and 2017 and I would argue they should not exist either (but that is ultimately beside the point and best left for another discussion). More generally, the issue here is not anyone's use of the userboxes, it is the use of a category to group users on the basis of this political view. What purpose does it serve? How does it promote or faciltiate collaboration? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, this category is not "Wikipedians who hate Trump" or "Wikipedians who dislike Trump". And he also should not be compared with just any other well-known figure. A category like "Wikipedians concerned about/against Justin Bieber" (one of the examples given) serves no purpose and harms the project because it targets the person. This particular category, however, is finely constricted within politics and fits an activism label much like Category:Wikipedians for Donald Trump and Category:Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter. In that sense, why delete it? I agree with you that it doesn't particularly serve any purpose and I'm not at all interested in what user categories I'm in but I also don't see what exactly this category violates/harms. If Wikipedians want to express their support for a popular political movement without standing on a soapbox to do so, why not let hem? The guideline is a bit problematic of itself because several example categories such as Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions are used by a good number of experienced contributors without much objection. And why would they object? This part of the WikiProject is hidden to all but other interested users. I don't think the nominator's rationale based on the ambiguously implemented guideline alone is strong enough to support a deletion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The examples you cite of advocacy categories also violate WP:USERCAT and should swiftly be deleted. I will nominate them after this discussion concludes. VegaDark (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If any of us, as Wikipedians, wants to express our views about a person, group, or idea, we are free to do so (within limits) on our user pages. However, a category is not a simple, personal expression of opinion because, by definition, it exists outside of userspace and serves to create a grouping of users. A political "activism" category like this one directly goes against the principle that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for [a]dvocacy ... of any kind: commercial, political, ... or otherwise" (emphasis added). In fact, the user category guideline specifically offers the now-deleted "Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush", which is directly comparable to this category about Trump, as an archetype of a category that should not exist.
    The guideline is not "ambiguously implemented". It is, like all other guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, just not implemented on every page at all times (not enough resources). A category like Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions actually fits very well within the guideline, because it groups users by their ability to improve the encyclopedia: editors who understand ParserFunctions can assist with complex template edits, and a category that allows others to find these editors is very useful. In the context of improving the encyclopedia, and other than facilitating inappropriate canvassing, what is the value of a category that allows others to find people who dislike Trump? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's one thing to declare where your interests and beliefs are on your userpage, especially as pertains to how you expect to benefit Wikipedia and all its readers. However, using categories to soapbox is not acceptable. This one in particular will be obsolete within the next decade anyway, barring the very unlikely event Trump manages to enable himself to stay in office for longer than the maximum eight years (assuming he even makes it that far). The only real function I can find categories like this enable is to help users who agree find one another, but in a very biased, contaminated way. We already have appropriate WikiProjects and task forces for like-minded users that are more timeless, dedicated to an entire field in which certain beliefs (like opposition to Trump) may be categorized without fear of being outdated. We don't need to turn our userpages into electoral ballots or town halls. I don't have any problem with people believing this or that that I may not myself, I would argue the exact same way for categories with politics swinging the exact opposite direction. Bear in mind what user categories are for; they are for things that define you as a person. Do you feel defined by your interests or by your fears? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:33, 2 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:Wikipedia categories named after aircraft[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. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. We have a category "Aircraft", we do not need to duplicate it with a tautological name. Nor is this a "maintenance category", it is merely a duplicate of a simple content category. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is not a duplicate of Category:Aircraft as a quick glance at both will immediately establish, and neither is it pointless. It is completely different from Category:Aircraft as it is a category of categories rather than a category of articles. Oculi (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it? What are the inclusion criteria for it, and how are they different from "aircraft"?
The idea of a category "for categories only" is not a great one. We do have such things, as metacategories (Commons uses more of these): but they are by definition a category set of containers (which can only be containers, as a consequence from their definition, such as "Aircraft by country" having members of "Welsh aircraft" and "Romanian aircraft"). This is different from some arbitrary collection of things from any subject concept (such as "aircraft") but with an arbitrary constraint then applied that they mustn't contain any mainspace pages. For one thing, that goes right against WP:EPONYMOUS, which are precisely the sort of members included here.
The only purpose to this category (judging from its current members) would be as a flattened list of all aircraft (flattening the subcategory structure). That has some recognised value as a useful category, but it's not the name that's in use here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it might be a duplicate of Category:Aircraft by type instead - but the point is that it's duplicating something we already have. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a visible category that is missing, by all means, let's rename this and make it visible. The problem is that it's an administrative category with no administrative use. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced of keeping. All of this is already under Category:Aircraft by manufacturer, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont think that a random category of categories named after foo is particular helpful and clearly just duplicates other categories without adding any value. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I continue to be baffled by the parallel hidden category tree we've built without any clear admin use. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I do not understand the purpose of this category. I understand that it a grouping based on a shared characteristic of the categories themselves rather than the subjects of categories, but I do not see the value of creating such a grouping. However, without understanding why it exists, I am concerned about deleting just this one category out of many others like it within Category:Eponymous categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like eponymous categories; not only do I like the sound of “Wikipedia categories named after...”; but it is useful, categorizing categories according to what they are named after. Category:Wikipedia categories named after aircraft is desirable because its member categories are named after individual aircraft, or brand names of specific models of aircraft, e.g. Boeing 747, Airbus A380.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So how is it different from Aircraft? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please clarify something for me? While you're correct that "its member categories are named after individual aircraft", it is unclear to me how that makes this category desirable, given that the existence of this category has no bearing on the existence of the eponymous categories it contains. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly interested in how you might be using this category. Would love to hear more. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 25 September 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_September_4&oldid=1146651467"