Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:People by company in Hungary[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) 07:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially empty. Contains one sub category which doesnt appear to belong there. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is an ill-match for reality, the expression leaves only hunger for a more satisfying organisation of words to satisfy and fulfil the mind, and replenish the emptiness caused by lack of meaning. Rename/redefine or delete, Is actually not possible, unless I or anyone available an agent for the state, and therefore to have access to lists of employees of companies, no? Is a joke, World Health Organisation is finding this joke amusing. Not this user. Sederecarinae (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC) (three words and a full-stop added after signature)[reply]
  • Delete - the single subcategory has a more orthodox parent. Oculi (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (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:Hungarian engineers by specialty[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2019 (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:13th-century Latvian people[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, in the 13th century there were no Latvian people yet. All articles in this category are also in Category:People of the Livonian Crusade which is clearly a better place. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2019 (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:Greenland people by occupation[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. All other categories use "Greenlandic" Rathfelder (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the nom is absolutely correct. Oculi (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom and standard style. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2019 (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:Actions[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Actions" is a hopelessly vague category that could encompass hundreds of thousands of articles. The creator seemed to wish to use it for actions relating to food and dieting, but also placed it on Telecommunication, so its scope even in their mind was extremely broad (or simply undefined, it's impossible to tell),so it is clearly a non-starter. I placed a speedy notice on it but it has been contested on the grounds the creator thought it important, so here we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My response: At the moment I find it hard to find my way through category lists which are mixtures of things, observations about things, disciplines to be studied, people, organizations, etc. and I struggle to explore actions specifically. Actions is a very broad category however but so too are "events" and "objects" both of which already exist. I feel that it would be really useful to be able to organize pages according to whether they are actions or not. It is not specifically about dieting or farming, I simply began categorizing pages that are actions. This would eventually become a huge list, but this isn't something new because there is already a category of "living people ", which is very large. Perhaps a better approach for me may have been to use subcategories of types of actions so the list would be more ordered instead of simply listing all the actions? --Formed4 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was added by this edit. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you struggle to find things in a library because they categorize things in topics such as religion, science, technology etc? DexDor (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- overly vague and broad, and definitely not a defining property of anything in it. Reyk YO! 14:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThat the scope is too great is not in itself a reason, this reason has been provided by other editors, User: Reyk is maybe one of those editors, or at least is aware of the criticism. If the group, because a category is a type of group, exists at all then it is useful for someone to have the group in existence. To rationalize too numerous is not how anything gets done in the world I'm sure, that the thing is a problem indicates the possibility of a solution, if there is no allowance of the problem, the solution is simply negated. The group defined by Action is applicable to a range of things, there is no limitation that should be imposed that indicates a group must be small, that the group fulfilling the category is large, is a fact of reality, is interesting, like an encyclopedia is interesting because it is encyclopediac in it's scope. It is as if there is a reason police enforcing the answer - James Wales and Larry Sanger I think brought the encyclopedia into existence initially and they are (or James Wales is), and the foundation, the people who editors must I think be to answer to, what is the problem with allowing an editor to create the category which is problematic, there could be individuals who thrive on delineating the group, to the same extent that Reyk feels a sense of disapproval. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, perhaps this could become a viable container category, though this is difficult to judge since there is currently no content in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without prejudice to setting up a container category later. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, there is human activities. It doesn't seem to help organize all the other information contained in its subcategories. Within its sub categories are things that are not actions though. Perhaps new subcategories that are about only about action may need to go as its subcategories? --Formed4 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spark 19:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Formed4: the critique "hopelessly vague" (Nominator's rationale) seems true, in the absence of a source to indicate to the contrary, and a problem to retention of the category, if there isn't any way to define the word enough to have a strong enough commencement for location of inclusion to the category group .Sederecarinae (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to to envisage a category as vague and worthless as this. Poltair (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the notion that it is a worthless to collect pages that are actions because what is the point of knowledge if not to help us make better decisions? What else can you make decisions about other than actions? So, I understand actions to be the most central focus of knowledge. Focusing on other areas of experience such as the objects we have named, the events in the past or future, the people, organizations, and disciplines that are around, is absolutely useful. By inquiring into them we can know the properties of things we have named so we can make use of them, we can form an understanding history so we may learn from the mistakes of the past and do things better today, we can assess the actions of what people or groups of people have done and decide how we will choose to relate to them in the present. However, the most direct application of knowledge is in understanding actions that people are taking in the present. Being able to explore our collective knowledge with a focus on actions I believe would be a really useful function of an encyclopedia.--Formed4 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2019 (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:Unnatural death[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful type of death to specify. As I understand it, "unnatural death" is being used to mean simply "death not by natural causes". Well then the category "Death" is more useful, as it doesn't arbitrarily exclude one cause of death. We might as well create "Category:Deaths not by pesticide poisoning" or "Category:Colours other than red" by the same rationale. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Causes of death is the direct parent of this category (I just moved it from Category:Death), but given what's in "Category:Causes of death" now, "Unnatural death" is not a useful subcategory, because it's too broad. (If everything was sorted, there would be only two subcategories, which is too few.) This category can be merged up, though many articles don't need to be there directly. For example, war is already covered by Category:Homicide. -- Beland (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unnatural death is defined as death resulting from an external cause. <ref>External causes of death, University of Melbourne, I'm sure if the nominating editor had read the article he or she would have noticed the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manner_of_death&action=edit&section=7, additionally I'm sure not understanding doesn't represent some-one who has - understood something, no need to press force of argument against the reason to mention then > :Category:Deaths not by pesticide poisoning, :Colours other than red - which seems to have closed the discussion unless the editor is able to perceive of any other reason. There is an obvious difference between the definitions natural and unnatural within the linked article I've included. I feel the nominating editor and his supporters feel my failure at the deleted article indicates my ineptitude in this consideration also, and I assent that my attempt at contribution at the article was overly ambitious, but the category has members belonging to a well-defined group with clearly defined criteria from a reliable sources (a previously identified problem with the article). The category is useful to students of medicine, forensics, those interested in autopsy and the like - as is indicated by relevant sources Sederecarinae (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the nominators rational seems ridiculous - because "Unnatural death" is an established fact by source (perhaps the nominator was unaware of the fact of "Unnatural death" being a genuine fact of reality at the time of nomination) - User: Beland added the category as a sub-category to Category: Causes of death - it is obviously correctly existing there, I think there isn't anything else to comment on this discussion beyond this. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sederecarinae: I don't think anyone is arguing that "unnatural death" does not exist as a recognized classification. How would you respond to the idea that sorting Category:Causes of death into natural and unnatural would leave only two subcategories there? -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
please look at the article Manner of death, "User: Beland added the category as a sub-category to Category: Causes of death - it is obviously correctly existing there." The category exists as a subject of natural/unnatural as is shown within the linked article in this passage, that there is a seperate categorization of the subjects in this category in other categories such as "war is already covered by Category:Homicide" ignores 1) the validity of the definitions in Manner of Death, and 2) the fact of articles having multiple categories. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I try not to put articles in all of the ancestor categories; for example, war is not in Category:Violent conflict because Category:War is already there. Does that make sense to you as a general principle? -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Beland No I don't see how choosing to not add articles to all ancestor categories is a valid principle (although I don't claim it is an invalid principle wholly) > imagine this, I am looking at a small dot like this > . < and I want to look more closely, and having found the dot now is this > • < I want to look at the dot in a 3D perspective, to find this is not possible, because the categorization at the first dot is "war", and if I want to additionally think like an individual(s) (professor(s)) who additionally define the subject within a different discipline of thinking, "violent conflict" is therefore forbidden, like there is one space for thought that may not allow the existence of an additional thought - because perhaps there is seven types of psychology and each person is fully entitled and able to live with there own psychology, but not one of the 7 types, perhaps, agrees with the other 6, p.7 linked to page. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's possible you might not understand what is classified where, but that's why we try to make category names clear and add documentation on category pages if it's likely to be unclear. There are thousands of articles under Category:War; do you think it would be a good idea to put them all in Category:Violent conflict?
@ Marcocapelle Is not true, please view the changes made recently to the article , overlaps is a true observation, that is all it is, an observation, the observation doesn't express a negation of value of overlapping between categories here is why = the logic of the argument that is "> largely overlaps > delete" < is not a logical sequence (forgive my ignorance, if editors won't indicate the relevant policy then I am kept in a situation of indicating my preference for direction of argument from the rigid reality of my own perceived preference in viewers ideas of an encyclopedia without any navigationable reference from ther editors I contest) - any sub-category overlaps the general, as the same article fulfils inclusion to both the specific and the general. Unnatural is a sub-set (of which there are two natural and unnatural) of cause, it is blatantly and beyond argument obvious that there should be two categories "natural causes " of death and "Unnatural causes" Sederecarinae (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sederecarinae: Phrases like "blatantly and beyond argument obvious" might not be considered WP:CIVIL. It's actually not clear to me that Category:Causes of death should be divided in two. Why not into a handful of subcategories - diseases, unintentional injuries, homicide, suicide? What about distinguishing proximal vs. ultimate? In general, I'd say a category with two subcategories is not useful as it starts to create too many layers to click through. -- Beland (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Reywas92 If the articles connected are to grow, this is to increase in number by addition to the article, to delimit the article at fits to one category is to state the size of the article is in total number described by one category, therefore arresting the development of the article Sederecarinae (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your last paragraph (in particular) is very unclear (has it been translated from another language?) - and what has the size of an article got to do with which (topic) categories it belongs in? Please also read WP:TLDR. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"fits fine within existing category" implies the articles are sufficiently categorized by the category Category:Causes of death, but two sub-categories exist that are possible "Natural causes" and "Unnatural causes", to settle for the category "Category:Causes of death" is to vanish the concept of the more specific identification of articles to the two groups, therefore losing the value of a better classifying of the articles to the two categories and indicating more meaning to the relevant articles. If a person imagines the principle divide and conquer is a strategy for overcoming a problematic group (of soldiers, concepts, words), this is to divide the things to more specific things, to break-down the whole to smaller parts, as if an anatomical might be made possible, to look at microscopic divisions of organs et cetera (I am not a doctor incidentally), therefore the problem is conquered. A reductionist solution to a problem. Sederecarinae (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: well it wasn't my intention to go to war on this issue, I'm sure, but my sense of boundaries of the nature of acceptability of engagement and conduct must be affected, or just non-synchronous with your own, in any case, it isn't my desire to have the category divided in two, it is to show the division of the article in categories is to identify all the aspect of a thing, to fully describe the thing, and the two aspect are the actual two aspects. The other factors are members of the categories not themselves categories. If there were a category homicide then it wouldn't be possible to accept the sense of tautology of article title being the same word as the category, but here I see a repetition of the word. > Homicide the thing categorized by Homicide the category <, > the article Banana categorized by the category Banana < is an unacceptable variation on the meaning of the word meaning!, it is true that all the other lesser description of death causations might be categories, in addition to the two being in the current thread. Sederecarinae (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sederecarinae: There is in fact a Category:Homicide, and the article Homicide is in it. Category:Homicide is in, for example, a subcategory of Category:Legal aspects of death and Category:Killings by type. The article Homicide doesn't need to be in those categories because readers going up the tree will go from article to category of the same name, and people going down the tree can go into the main article of the category if that's what they're interested in. I do not understand your desire "to show the division of the article in categories is to identify all the aspect of a thing, to fully describe the thing, and the two aspect are the actual two aspects", as in, I can't even parse that grammatically or figure out what it's referring to. -- Beland (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and I think I've gotten everything that's not already covered there. (Most was.) -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (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:A letter articles[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, if filled, would be excessively large- we've previously deleted categories like "Books beginning with the letter W" and the like for similar reasons. Its name is mildly grammatically incorrect. It also serves no organisational or navigational purpose, since it's already obvious what letter the page starts with. In short, this is pointless and unproductive busywork. Reyk YO! 10:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the contrary it is very useful because linguists and anyone who is interested would like to look at and compare the articles of each letter, and additionally allows wikipedia to count all the articles beginning with each letter. The category, and all of the alphabet, is a way to create order and organisation within the encyclopedia. With reference to "excessively large", there are already lists "of all usernames" for example that are very large, a bot could be made to categorize, which would eliminate any need for "busywork" to be done. The category is simply essential and nothing less. As a mention, perhaps it might be renamed "A letter commencement article" (which is a little cumbersome though for the category area), A-letter articles, A-articles would perhaps suffice as an alternative, if the challenging editor consents. Sederecarinae (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can search for articles by prefix, which shows that there are 400,000 articles starting with the letter A. --130.208.182.75 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is helpful. The articles aren't listed in alphabetical order though, and for the study of linguistics, it is interesting to see how articles proceed in the order, and the type of titles that are in similar regions of a letter, to see if there are any relationships between naming choices that shows pattern or meaning. 403 856 is the number of articles, infact. Sederecarinae (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a classic case of a non-defining category. Academic linguists wishing to study such things would use a search query similar to the IP's and a professional database, rather than a Wikipedia category, but we needn't account for such a hypothetical anyway. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply not a useful category. Not a defining characteristic of the article, no organisational purpose that could not be served by some type of search. – Teratix ₵ 12:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine that editors feel they want to express delete, but is the actual problem with the category being in existence - is it belonging to a different absurd reality ? If there were a dictionary and I were to open the dictionary the entries are in alphabetical order, is that a useful thing to see of not?Sederecarinae (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what could actually in reality be the problem with being able to see articles in an alphabetical order? Sederecarinae (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:AllPages is where you can view all pages in alphabetical order. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems true at first glance @Bilorv: but the pages are Special indicating they are beginning with non-letter article titles, although they are in alphabetical order in the A's at the first page, which does indicate something. It is obvious that the human mind prefers to make order of things, to see order, it is the easier and correct reality for the human eye and mind to perceive.Sederecarinae (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
someone could create a function that allows viewers to sort through the numerous entries, for instance 403 856 in A, so that it is possible to see Aa-, Ab-, Ac-, Ad- et catera, therefore enabling viewers to look through the articles in a more realistic way without being presented by the entire articles of for example A and having to make a choice. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion did make me think though, perhaps create a category:article beginning with the prefix, i.e. article grouped by language roots, or any group(s) of category determined by the structure of language, that I am currently not altogether familiar with, but would be useful to me, and if me then surely some-one elseSederecarinae (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like what Wiktionary is already doing; see e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply false. It's a list of all articles alphabetically, where special characters are given higher precedence than "a". You can see all "aa" articles: [1]. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: you're confusing my own opportunity to look through Special:PrefixIndex with a viewer on the site wikipedia, who isn't a user, and therefore has no access to the Special:PrefixIndex. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I refute your claim "not a defining characteristic" thus ------> A -----> is a an obvious characteristic of all words beginning with A > please see Cratylus by Plato delineates the subject. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This must be the conclusion, my refute is beyond contest. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone may access that page, not only logged-in users. Access is not limited. No one cares what Plato has to say about alphabetization, go away. Reywas92Talk 18:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By defining characteristic, we mean important and noteworthy. The first letter might be a primary characteristic of the name of the article, but it is definitely a trivial characteristic of the entity. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names has already decided that even stronger similarities of name than first letter are not worthy of categories. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of the wiki- of wikipedia, the quality of being facile is the reason wiki- is good, because it is easy to find things, the organisation of the encyclopedia aids location of related articles by the quickness and availability of access to those relevant articles, it is expediant to this definition, the definition of wikiness, that the category should exist. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the benefit of having both the special listing and the category, that would justify all the work it would take to make the category? I think having too many categories also makes it harder to use the actually useful categories, due to clutter; does that make sense to you as a general principle? -- Beland (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I mentioned before the availability of the Special:PrefixIndex doesn't aid those who don't know of it's existence, as the task of wikipedia is to make the knowledge available, the category increases the navigationableness of articles, by having another node for navigation i.e. the Special:PrefixIndex, plus the category - the existence of the categories is useful for a group of hypothetical people who would want to look at A- articles; Aa-, Aaa-, Aab / Aac, Ab as a progression through the article, and to number the amount of articles to each group, therefore to have a set of numbers less than the whole of 400, 000+ (obviously). Would aid analytical intelligence, which would be a type of feedback to more integrated and long-term committed editors, to have a vested interest in involvement with larger numbers - 400, 000+ in A looks like terra incognita, and that isn't in the spirit of wikipedia. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would make the listing more visible, but if we wanted to do that, wouldn't it be better to add a link in the left-hand Tools list or something programmatic? I think the reason we don't have something like that, or automatic links to the next and previous articles in alphabetical order, is that this would not be useful to the vast majority of readers, and would thus actually make things worse by adding clutter. How do you feel about the clutter argument? -- Beland (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clutter is a cruel description, because all the editors are not to blame for their addition to something that in the end is just a mass of difficult to look at categories, therefore clutter. Each editor added something with value and the whole addition together became a problem because there is too much inclusion of criteria, is encyclopediac is an indication the scope should be a great number increasing in size. My understanding of the actual reality of the discussed reality of this situation, is, things exist that are in the real view or observation of a problem, many things, doing anything that is not easy involves engagement with a sequence of difficult tasks of perhaps varying difficulty, > wikipedia is not perfect it is a work in progress <, reiterating > to create a problem, if the problem is caused by the solution to a problem, the problem created has itself a solution - in life people are given renumeration for the address of problems, i.e. work, employment, the creation of problems is part of the greater movement in this project to solving the initial problem of having knowledge available, not suppressing knowledge, getting side-tracked by other issues of concern, in my view seem to be of a secondary concern. The world can't stop, people need something to do, creating problems gives people something to do, to gain a solution. On the suggestion of Tools, the categories in any case are hidden at the foot of the page, it would better to have them at the head o the page, this would give fluidity to the encyclopedia, especially since the existence of the categories in tantamount to a secret society, as is indicated by your continued suggestion (perhaps) of a varying location for the link, other than at an easily locatable position on the page. Sederecarinae (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your response is unclear, but I'll just say a fundamental duty of encyclopedia editors as a group is to trim content that does not serve readers. We have a budget for how long an article can be before people will stop reading it, and a budget for the number of categories can be in before people stop being able to quickly navigate through them. I agree categories are not currently very prominent on the page, though presumably the majority of editors want them where they are. But the idea of any of this being a "secret society" is a bit offensive, given it's all quite public and Wikipedia is a project focused on openness. This is a question of ease of use. -- Beland (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2019 (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:Mountain Bike Hall of Fame inductees[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The award is usually mentioned in passing in the articles with other honours in the body of the articles, although a few mention it in the lede or not at all. Many of the recipients were active long before the organization existed. This award doesn't seem defining. The Mountain Bike Hall of Fame has an exhibit in the Marin Museum of Bicycling in California. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the previous CfDs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous CFDs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly Delete because The contents of the category are already listed here in the main article, (RevelationDirect) therefore an unnecessary repetition of the information, or Keep, because although they are listed, if someone were at any of the individual articles, having the category would allow the reader to navigate to the other Inductees, which is a legitimate reason for keep. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American mountain bikers (and normal links between articles) is sufficient. DexDor (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"not a defining characteristic" is not true, it is a statement that might be true, but in this case is not true, I hope to make this observation that is all, and appeal for clemancy. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I make a plea for editors concerned to spare this categories existence, because of the value of navigation through wikipedia from the individual articles to any other individual of the category is good, brings happiness and light to the mind of doubting and non-knowing readers suffering in the darkness of their mutual ignorance. In fluidity there is life. That should be our motto. Sederecarinae (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third by my count, but the first two seemed to cancel each other out! RevelationDirect (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2019 (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:Texas Gospel Music 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame has a display in the Dollywood amusement park, the Gospel Music Hall of Fame has a traveling exhibit and, as far as I can tell, the Texas Gospel Music Hall of Fame is internet only for right now. There is a lot of overlap between the categories: Lee Roy Abernathy, Jake Hess, Doris Akers are in both the national and Southern one while Gary McSpadden, Kurt Kaiser and Les Beasley are in the National and Southern cats. Regardless of which ones they're in, the ledes of the articles mostly don't mention any award at all and, when they do, it's usally a Grammy so none of these seem defining. The contents of the categories are already listified here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2019 (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/2019_April_26&oldid=1073191913"