Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DexDor (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 12 April 2018 (→Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent

Nominator's rationale: As explained by @Marcocapelle at this CfD, it is a non-defining characteristic often not mentioned in the article. I agree that is is a WP:TRIVIALCAT, and this detail is usually so minor that it is possibly OR. The same rationale could be applied to other categories for fictional characters by descent. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Picking on the Irish is particularly invidious, because Ireland has exported people on a huge scale since the 1840s, so the Irish diaspora massively outnumbers the population of Ireland. Fictional portrayals of the Irish disapora are a significant topic of academic study: see e.g. JSTOR search and Gscholar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, and purely part of an author's/creator's whim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing real people by the ethnicity/nationality of their great-grandparents (I've seen at least 5 descent cats in some articles) is bad enough and categorizing fictional people in this way is even worse. It's very WP:DNWAUC. It could be argued that this should be an upmerge rather than a straight delete but the pages I looked at (example) are in so many other categories that this is probably unnecessay. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DexDor: that's a reasonable argument for deleting Category:Fictional British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin etc and all their subcats ... but it is not an argument for this proposal to single out the Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support deletion/upmerge of any descent categories (that can go back an unlimited number of generations) - for real or fictional people. In a CFD like this wherever the boundary (of which categories it covers and which it doesn't) is drawn someone could argue that the boundary is wrong - we shouldn't oppose just because of where the boundary is drawn in that particular CFD (assuming, for example, that any subcats are included). If this CFD results in delete then I would expect further (perhaps larger) CFDs to address the rest of the (fictional) descent tree - it's already in my to-do list. DexDor (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DexDor: I note that you do not even try to justify this targeting of Irish-only cats. You have been around CfD for plenty long enough to know that consistency is a key principle in categorisation, and that randomly picking out one cluster of a bigger set produces inconsistent outcomes.
          If it's already in your to-do list, then there is no reason to proceed with this selective nom. Much better to have one big group nom in which a consistent principle can be applied across the board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be neater if one cfd discussed the whole of Category:Fictional North American people of European descent and subcats, but that would be a very big cfd and even then someone could ask why, for example, Category:Fictional British people of North American descent isn't included in the nomination and the larger a cfd nomination is the more likely it is (in my experience) that some people will argue that the cfd is too big and should be opposed on that basis. DexDor (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Misha Arobelidze

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) 04:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - this category is unlikely to get any larger Nthep (talk) 17:04, 29 March 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:Orders, decorations, and medals

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps a more suitable wording for the scope. More in accordance with main article order (distinction), in turn named so for WP:NPOV reasons, with "distinction" deemed more neutral in relation to the bestower than the aesthetical value implied in the term "decoration". For a concrete example of the latter, consider this and this. While not sure if precisely "Orders, medals, and other distinctions" would be the optimal wording, other proposals are welcome. Perhaps even simply Category:Phaleristics would do (with subcategories Category:Phaleristics in X land, etc.). In any case, a discussion about the preexisting wording would be welcome - particularly regarding the term "decoration". In accordance with the result of a discussion, perhaps also a Wikipedia:DISTINCTIONS naming convention and style notice could be established. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support initial proposal. I think, for the sake of readers, "Phaleristics" might be a little too much of a half-dollar word for many, and should perhaps be reserved as a parent and for items relating to the general history of awards, medal collecting, and the like. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Procurement practices

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WikiProject Business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peers by year

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. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because the contents are all Lists of peers by decade BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 29 March 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:Universal Deluxe Editions

Nominator's rationale: A lot of albums are re-released when they reach significant anniversaries or achievement but the re-release as a "special edition" is not a defining aspect of the album itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_29&oldid=836121302"