Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6[edit]

Category:Historic silver works[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) 06:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a category that doesn't seem to serve a purpose, or even know its purpose. If it is intended for work made of silver we already have Category:Silversmithing and Category:Silver objects. If it is intended for companies or sites that produce silver (suggested by its parent categories) there is only one article in the category that fits the bill in any way, which is a mine therefore should be in Category:Silver mining. The articles in the category are already in other suitable silver-related categories. Sionk (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Distinction between historic organisations and, presumably, non-historic, does not work. Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All are in other silver cats, where many of the contents are just as "historic". Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (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:Historical people of Izmir[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:People from Smyrna. Timrollpickering 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category, this is about people from Smyrna. Besides we hardly have any other "Historical people" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or better rename Category:People from Smyrna, as I am not sure that the proposed target is a correct demonym. The fact that this is for historical people of the Greek city, not those of the present Turkish Izmir can be explained in a headnote. The Greek population of Asia Minor was exchanged with the Muslim population of Greece in the 1920s. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (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:Historical people of Istanbul[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 00:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, a container category with only two subcategories is not helpful for easy navigation. Besides we hardly have any other "Historical people" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Unclear distinction. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we don't split "people from" categories into dead vs. alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The effect is that who subcats will become subcats of Istanbul ones. This is not a living/dead split, but one related to the successive names of the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (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:Square roots[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) 07:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All (real and complex) numbers are square roots of other numbers, thus all articles on numbers belong in this category, making this category completely redundant. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the category is for numbers notable for being square roots. 2 is indeed the square root of 4 but an article on 2 is unlikely to highlight this fact. An article on the imaginary number i which didn't mention (-1)^(1/2) would be seriously defective. Oculi (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2018 (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:Copper mining in Africa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 14#Category:Copper mining in Africa

Category:Sexuality and computers[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Category:Sexuality and computers. ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-specific category; broadening the definition of this category a bit will make it much more useful. Techology and sexuality is a much wider topic than just computers and sexuality, going back to before the invention of computers. Consider, for example, call girls, made possible by the telephone, or the vibrator and electrosex, which both pre-date the invention of the computer. "Computers" is much too specific; more or less any modern technology involves computers, but is not necessarily a "computer technology". For example, the Internet is primarily a communications technology, even though it is implemented using computers, in much the same way that newspapers are primarily a communications technology, not a wood or pigment technology, although they are implemented using both. The same goes for telephony, cars, navigation, and so on: all now use computers, but are not "computer technologies". -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2018 (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:Ancient Spartan women athletes[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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: typical WP:SMALLCAT; delete and upmerge Constantine ✍ 11:30, 6 July 2018 (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 associated with the Bengal Renaissance[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Category:People associated with the Bengal Renaissance. ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, hardly any of the articles in this category even mentions "Bengal Renaissance". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably trim. It would be ridiculous to just delete this, but with 130 members, it might be too large. The Bengal Renaissance navbox thing has about 50 names. Several of these mention eg the Young Bengal group, which it is legitimate to count as part of the Bengal Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see room for a new Category:Young Bengal leaders. But as far as the 50 articles in the navbox concerned, most of these articles do not mention "Bengal Renaissance" except in the navbox. That does not make it defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Derozian redirects to Young Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense - the two things are different, which is why they have two articles. So why restrict the category to those from the smaller part? And the Indian and Bangladesh projects should be informed, rather than just Europeans with no knowledge of the area meddling in it! Another area of the BR was Brahmoism (but not plain Brahmo), and its later splinter groups, which many articles mention. You can be sure not every bio in the "Italian Renaissance" tree includes those words. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few people in this category are defined as a Brahmoist. Some are of a Brahmoist family but that does not count as a defining characteristic if they were not active in Brahmoism themself. The Indian and Bangladesh projects are informed by the project tags on the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's always a highly dubious argument - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Article alerts averages less than 1 view a day. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2018 (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 associated with the Australian Labor Party[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Category:People associated with the Australian Labor Party. ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, as the header of the category page already indicates this is a hodgepodge category. The existence of Category:Australian Labor Party politicians‎ should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merely being "associated" with something is almost always non-defining. If the party has members as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union did, then perhaps membership is defining, but it's not clear that this is what is being categorized here. Being associated with a political party, such as saying you support it or campaign for it or such is much like being associated with a sports team by supporting it or watching/attending its games. Not meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either they are politicians (including party officials) or they are not worth categorising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganise somehow This seems to be a catch-all for ALP people not easily categorised elsewhere, mostly people notable in other fields who were unsuccessful candidates for the party, various party officials & staffers, a handful of intellectuals who may have fought the column war for the party plus a few councillors and some people whose article says nothing about Labor connections. Candidates and party officials have never been terribly satisfactorily categorised - maybe we should clearly merge them to Category:Australian Labor Party politicians‎ as a firm precedent? Timrollpickering 08:42, 21 July 2018 (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 associated with the anti-austerity movement[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Category:People associated with the anti-austerity movement. ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these are people associated with an anti-austerity movement in different countries, they do not have a relationship with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not solve the problem that the articles of this category are very unrelated to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2018 (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 associated with Anonymous[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Category:People associated with Anonymous. ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge per WP:OCASSOC, this is currently a hodgepodge category of people associated with Anonymous in very different ways. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That's how we have Category:Alt-right not Category:People associated with the alt-right. wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCASSOC and similar to my comments to the Labor Party above. "Activists" are hardly better. Look at our article "activism" which defines it as: "efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental reform or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society. Forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or to politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes." So anyone who writes to a newspaper or politician or campaigns could be an "activist". Malarkey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (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:Song articles with TOCcolors-class lyrics section[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 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created and populated by a suspected sockpuppet, not a category of song articles by quality as stated, but rather mostly trivial. The user has been brought up at ANI and is currently the subject of an SPI. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Regardless of the editor's background and behaviour, this category doesn't serve any useful purpose. This was demonstrated when it was created uncategorised, and then placed, inappropriately, in Category:Song articles by quality. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, the category provides a useful list of all articles where an abominable colour scheme, which has nothing to with "toccolours", is used. So maybe it should be kept until the underlying problem has been removed and the category is empty. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after emptying: most articles do look pretty abominable at present, but cleaning up won't be as easy as rolling back a single user's edits, as could be done at La Marseillaise; Indonesia Raya's abominableness goes back to a different editor in Oct 2015, and San Marino's Inno Nazionale della Repubblica actually looks fine to me. Sparafucil (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uninformative/trivial as a cat. While I can understand the temptation to 'keep it until the underlying problem has been removed', this would only add to the backlog of clean-ups. Editors are welcome to clean up class at any point, and WP:ILIKEIT isn't an argument for using visually distracting use of styles in the first instance. There are some horrible examples flouting WP:DTT, and the idea is that we WP:FIXIT as we find it. Let's not keep categories in order to identify unruly usage of article formatting. Badly presented articles are going to happen/already exist without such monitoring systems and wish lists. Clean the article up as you encounter it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2018 (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/2018_July_6&oldid=1079915248"