Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oculi (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 8 December 2018 (→Category:Swedish supercentenarians: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4

Category:Songs from Spider-Man soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Based on Category:Songs from James Bond films and I believe a more defining description. Otherwise, following the Batman example, they can be moved to a broader Category:Spider-Man music (see Category:Batman music). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree and I think a similar Batman songs category may be warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those songs have articles? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rise Above 1 --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acid fast bacilli

Nominator's rationale: it has been raised on the Category talk:Acid fast bacilli page already – and the reason given there is correct: a hyphen is appropriate here, not space. cherkash (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures damaged in the 2018 Anchorage earthquake

Nominator's rationale: A search of the category namespace revealed that there is no other category of this type in existence. The parent categories suggest that it is really intended to be a category about the earthquake itself rather than buildings and structures, and was only created in this form because the earthquake category would likely contain only the main article. You can also go to the article as it develops and see subtle signs of a bizarro POV, namely that we should be giving more weight to this earthquake than to the 1964 earthquake. That point is not necessarily relevant to a category discussion other than to provide background to the idea that this category amounts to puffery/window dressing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to this nom, could you please define what you mean by "a bizarro (point of view)? Every edit I have made was done with balance in mind. For example, I am the only editor - literally, the only one - who added information about the significant damage in the Mat-Su. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simple: the amount of energy spent covering this earthquake versus the amount of energy spent covering the 1964 earthquake defies the reality of the situation. It's called appropriate weight. I fully understand that the typical Wikipedian these days is only interested in picking low-hanging fruit and that whatever the news media is pushing today affords excellent opportunities to achieve that. What nobody seems to understand is when you add up all the other times it's happened, you end up building a news site and tricking yourself into believing that you're building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rude remarks about "the typical Wikipedian" do not help the collaborative effort, nor do complaints about what people haven't done. If you think the 1964 earthquake needs more attention the solution is in your own hands.Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe RadioKAOS is something of an intellectual bully. I don't say that lightly. He viciously and snarkingly attacks anyone who disagrees with his own vision of Wikipedia, and refuses to see any other point of view. I have sincerely complimented him more than once. I have offered to collaborate with him. Hell, I have done everything to make him happy, short of giving him a Barnstar. Not long ago, after complimenting him, I asked if he would be interested in collaborating on a new article for Beth Weldon, the new mayor of Juneau, Alaska. He ignored me, even though I respectfully replied to the last message he left on my own talk page during the same time period.

That being said, if there is a better title for this category, I will happily consider it. I don't believe that linking buildings that were damaged during the same natural disaster in a category is inappropriate. In fact, I believe it is helpful. But again, rather than collaborate with me he criticizes. It's an old and predictable pattern with him. Wikipedia deserves better. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine by year

Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine+subcats contains only 10 articles, so need to subdivide it chronologically. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress, please wait. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev, please stop and discuss. There do not appear to be enough articles to justify a by-year categorisation scheme for Terrorist incidents in Ukraine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, may be not now, but the category will grow. Isn't it possible for the category to grow? Once again, please wait before deleting it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: it would have to grow a long way before it was feasible to divide it by year. I have reverted your attempts today to bloat these categories by padding them out with articles which are not about terrorist incidents, such as Little green men (an article about an armed group who appear to have been involved in no violence) and Mikhail Tolstykh (a soldier in the War in Donbass).
Please also note WP:TERRORIST. Assigning the label to a person, group or incident needs to be done with great care.
Note e.g. that Category:Terrorists was deleted WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists.
Again ... please stop creating and populating these categories, and start discussing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in Ukraine by oblast

Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Wikipedia's coverage of Ukraine is nowhere near extensive enough to justify creating by-decade categories for each of its 24 oblasts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:October 1995 events in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT]: only one article, and not part of a series. There is no Category:1995 events in Ukraine by month, and no other Category:YYYY events in Ukraine by month. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1995 murders in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Murders in Ukraine by year, and we don't seem to have enough articles on murders in Ukraine to justify creating a by-year category system.
The category's lone article Shakhtar Stadium (Donetsk) is already adequately categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1995 in Donetsk

Nominator's rationale: Not part of a series, i.e. there is no Category:Years in Donetsk or even Category:Years in Donetsk Oblast.
The lone article Shakhtar Stadium (Donetsk) is already adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress, please wait. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev, please stop and discuss. There do not appear to be enough articles to justify a by-year categorisation scheme for the city of Donetsk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are nonviolence advocates

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Fits the definition of an inappropriate user category as a category that "includes any grouping of users by support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia." VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Bahrain

Nominator's rationale: That, for example, the Greater flamingo is found in Kuwait or the Green sea turtle is found in the UAE is non-defining. Example of a previous similar CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey by session

Nominator's rationale: per parents Category:Terms of Grand National Assembly of Turkey and Category:Legislators by term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gujrat

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per head article Gujrat, Pakistan. The head article was boldly moved[1] last month from Gujrat City to its current title by @Uanfala. That move looks correct, but a WP:C2D speedy rename of the category is not applicable, since there was no discussion.
Note that the current title is ambiguous with Gujrat District and Gujrat Tehsil. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian supercentenarians

Nominator's rationale: Yet more GRG overcategorization. It consists of 4 pages, 3 of which are redirects to the 4th. Unnecessary for obvious reasons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish supercentenarians

Nominator's rationale: More GRG overcategorization. Only 3 pages in this category, and 2 are redirects to the 3rd page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli supercentenarians

Nominator's rationale: Category with only 2 pages. Part of the extreme overcategorization the GRG editors left us with years ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free State of Fiume

Nominator's rationale: Small categories, little scope to expand. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1564 establishments in the Crimean Khanate

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the meanwhile i created century level tree for the Khanate, which would not contradict this proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 13:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chegwin family

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorisation (only three entries) Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IBM products

Nominator's rationale: By its own admission, this category is not descriptive of its contents. Not all of its members are products in the sense that they were offered for sale, and some of its members describe hardware and software that are components of a larger system, which were products (and some possible not; I haven't viewed all members due to the large numbers). In 2008, a simpler system existed where we had Category:IBM hardware, Category:IBM software, and Category:IBM services. Regardless of whether something was experiment, proprietary (for internal use only), a component, or a product, one of these three categories was suitable without resorting to apologizing for inaccuracies. In the same year, this category was created, and the three categories were depopulated and redirected to this category without consensus or any explanation (that I could find). This category should be deleted and the previous system reinstated. The distinction between IBM things that were products, those that weren't, and those that were proprietary components of products leads to self-contradictions and isn't useful. 99Electrons (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I support this idea. Maybe keep IBM Products as an empty higher-level category containing the more specific ones. Reyk YO! 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Category:IBM computers, Category:IBM services and Category:IBM software already exist as subcategories. There is no reason to remove the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For one thing, a straight delete would take Category:IBM software out of Category:IBM. I don't see a problem with a component being categorized as a product. Most of the category text should be removed. DexDor (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:IBM software (and others like it) can be simply placed into Category:IBM. The IBM, IBM products, IBM computers/services/software hierarchy is needlessly tall, hinders navigation as a result; and fails to be a superset of its contents; it's not just whether components of products could be deemed to be products or not. Removing the category text doesn't resolve the contradiction of non-products (not components), such as the Harvard Mark I computer that IBM was commissioned to develop for Harvard University, being in a category for products. 99Electrons (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article begins with "The IBM ..." and says "The ASCC was developed and built by IBM ..." so why do you think it doesn't belong in the category? DexDor (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it was a one time creation, made for a specific purpose, rather than being built and sold repeatedly to multiple customers. If anything, the product, in this case would have been the services of IBM's research division, that built the hardware, because those services have been sold to other customers. To illustrate with an example: its like hiring a carpenter to create custom cabinets for you in your kitchen. The cabinets that they make are not their product; rather, their services would be the product that they sell. Of course, in the real world, carpenters don't have product catalogs, but I hope the principle has been explained. A really paranoid android (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still a product - regardless of the number produced. Even if something is designed (e.g. it might have product requirements, product specification etc), but the number built is zero it is still a product (although we would be less likely to have a wp article about it). It makes sense to subcategorize Category:IBM into categories for facilities, staff, products etc. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support this deletion - but not for the proposed replacement. There is no need to burden wikipedia with the complexity of IBM products. Just reduce it all to Category:IBM. My rationale for this is that even with the categorization that the nominator proposed, there are edge cases that defy categorization. For example, the DataPower product is sold as an appliance where the key innovation is that the XSLT processor is implemented in hardware. But the device also includes software on top of the appliance, and is available in virtual (software only) form as well. Is this hardware, or software? A similar argument can be made for the Netezza products as well. What about SaaS products - they are clearly services (the terminal 'S' in the acronym), but they are also software? The best thing is to stay away from all this complexity. --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that only the "products" category has been nominated, so the discussion is not about its subcategories. The question whether "services" might be ambiguous should be discussed some other time. As for products, the category has numerous siblings in Category:Products by company and I am not convinced that the term "products" would be so much more ambiguous for IBM than for other companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure that you're right. In the rationale provided by the nominator, he/she says that the current category should be gotten rid off and replaced by a categorization scheme that existed in the past. My comments were reflective of that. If that re-categorization is taken off the table, then doing nothing is the better option, though IMHO, I still think that there is not a good reason to have a category of products made by a specific company. The product catalogs of companies world-wide morph all the time, and we really want the valuable cycles of wikipedia contributors to be spent on things more valuable than keeping in synch with such lists. A really paranoid android (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many differences between a company's catalogue of (all) their current products and a category that lists the articles we have about the company's products (including those that are historical). A catalogue might contain many products that we don't have an article about (e.g. because of notability).  If a computer was an IBM product and we didn't have an IBM products category then editors would be likely to place the article about the computer directly in Category:IBM. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_4&oldid=872600232"