Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmandaNP (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 20 April 2019 (→Bridges by city: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

Category:Child actors by medium

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: no consensus without prejudice against a fresh merge nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to subcategorize actors by the intersection of child actor status with the "film vs. television" medium distinction. Even more so than adult actors, child actors really don't "specialize" in one medium or the other, but almost always have both film and television roles in their filmographies -- so obsessively overcategorizing them this way just creates excessive category bloat as each kid gets catted as "nationality child actors" and "nationality film actors" and "nationality television actors" and "film child actors" and "television child actors". By and large, further, these have been used only for a partial random selection of Indian and Filipino child actors, with only one male and one female child actor from any other country on earth ever having been added to any of these categories at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepfor now. The rationale and the proposal don't match. Category:Child actors by medium is a container category, with a total of 21 subcats in two trees. Bearcat has nominated only 10 of the 21 subcats and has bizarrely proposed deletion rather than upmerger. So long as any of the subcats exist, it makes no sense to delete the container category.
I am also unpersuaded that child actors don't "specialize" in one medium or the other. The only child actor who I have ever personally known (they are know a middle-aged non-actor) worked exclusively in television. That's obviously only a personal anecdote, but even if the nom did decide to nominate all the subcategories, then I'd want to see some evidence to support their assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories I haven't listed here are of a completely different type — "Child actors in Specific-Indian-Regional cinema" — which would have to be batched and considered completely separately from this, because the reasons for or against those will be completely different from the reasons for or against the ones I've batched here. I haven't knowingly excluded a single category whose questionability hinges on the grounds I've specified here, rather than on completely different grounds that require a separate batch, and even if I did accidentally miss something the stragglers can easily still be added to the batch. And the vast majority of the articles are already in the appropriate other categories anyway, and don't need to be upmerged anywhere at all — so there's no need to actively propose an upmerger, when simple editor attention can easily pick out the one or two oddball exceptions that actually need a replacement category rather than just a straight removal. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Bearcat, but that is a multiply weird response:
  1. Indian child actors are not of a completely different type to other child actors, unless you are measuring skin colour, which I assume your are not. They are child actors, just like child actors in Dublin or Dubai or Durban of Dallas or Dusseldorf. I am finding it very hard to read that comment as anything other than "Indian child actors are not normal child actors", which would be a highly problematic stance. Please clarify what on earth you do actually mean?
  2. If you propose keeping those categories, then there is no sense in eliminating their parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say or imply that the actors are of a different type. I said that the categories are drawing a different marker line (i.e. Specific-Indian-Regional cinema) around them, which needs to be considered separately — the arguments for or against subcategorizing actors by whether they perform in Kannada or Telugu or Bollywood work are not the same as the arguments for or against subcategorizing actors by whether they work in film or television. Not because the actors are a different type, but because the category is grouping them in a significantly different way. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So categorising by medium is too narrow, but categorising by medium+language/medium+region is fine? Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said either. Not "fine", just that they need to be considered as a separate batch from these because it's a completely different set of considerations that needs to be phrased and addressed very differently. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, it doesn't look to me like a separate thing at all. You haven't identified any meaningful way in which there is, as you claim, a completely different set of considerations ... and have offered no rationale for zapping most of the higher level categories while you evaluate the lower ones.
And I still don't see any evidence to support your core assertion that child actors really don't "specialize" in one medium or the other, but almost always have both film and television roles in their filmographies.
So I'm going to form up my oppose. This whole proposal has too many flaws. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would leave few to no articles uncategorized, because very close to zero of these articles aren't already in the appropriate "target" categories as it is — and all it takes is a little bit of editor caution to catch those few exceptions, rather than a comprehensive merger that would require a followup round of DUPCAT cleanup. It's only necessary to specifically propose a merger if all of the categorized articles need to be comprehensively moved to the other category across the board, and not if 95 per cent of the articles are already categorized appropriately and need no replacement category at all, with only a very few exceptions that can easily be handled on their own. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, as I am sure you know, a CFD such as this will (if passed) be implemented by bots ... so there is no opportunity for a little bit of editor caution to catch those few exceptions unless you specify manual deletion. Which you didn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 8 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:Comedians from London, Ontario

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) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. This qualifies for neither of the exemptions there: the intersection of occupation with city of birth is not a defining characteristic of the comedy per se, and there is no comprehensive scheme of always subcategorizing Canadian comedians down to the individual city they come from -- categories like this exist only for Toronto and Vancouver, and are of questionable necessity even there, and not for any other Canadian city (and for comparison's sake, New York City is the only place in the entire United States that has its own "comedians from city" category either.) All of which means we would need considerably more than just two comedians from London to actually justify a category for them. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 8 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:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee

Nominator's rationale: Hard to see when this has ever been a defining characteristic of anyone. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick Google Books search find plenty of people for whom this is listed in a short biography, suggesting that it is defining for them. Also turns up repeatedly in Who's Who/Who Was Who entries, which are generally brief and include little more than defining characteristics. Warofdreams talk 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think inclusion in a short biography demonstrates that something meets WP:CATDEF. A defining characteristic, the text at CATDEF implies, is something in the first sentence or two of a short biography. I looked at a quasi-random sampling of people in this category:
I concur with BrownHairedGirl's description of the fundamental philosophical problem that a category may be defining for some people, but not others. I think the approach one has to take is on an article by article basis. For this person, a particular category is not defining and should not be added. For that person, it is and it should be.
This leaves us with some categories that might apply to a lot of people, but which are actually defining for only a few articles. I see a lot of school alumni categories that rarely seem defining, so I chop them from articles, but I can see they might be in certain situations.
In this particular case, however, while I can see that being a Fabian may meet DEFCAT, and we have a category for that, I struggle to see that this category, "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee‎", or indeed a related category, "Treasurers of the Fabian Society‎", are ever defining. The broader category of being a member of the Fabians seems sufficient. It's WP:OC to split that into 5 sub-categories ("Chairs of...", "General Secretaries of...", "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee‎", "Presidents of..." and "Treasurers of..."). Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should have proposed upmerger, not deletion, shouldn't I? Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if Fabian Society Executive Committee is not mentioned in an article then the category should be removed. (Editors should not be 'chopping' school alumni categories from articles (assuming the school is mentioned and preferably sourced). I think (in practice) we categorize by defining characteristics and also a list of factoids - year of birth, death, place person is from, school, university + a few others.) Oculi (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in practice, we should follow agreed guidelines (WP:NONDEF), which are that we categorise by defining characteristics only. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of categories which are defining for some of the members, but not for others. Sometimes they reveal interesting connections which have not been generally noticed. I think we should keep them if they are significant for a reasonable number. I dont see much harm done if that means some people appear in categories which, as far as they are concerned, are not really defining. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that we would be acting against an editing guideline in WP:NONDEF. Have a debate and change the guideline if you like, but I think it's unhelpful to try a backdoor subversion of an agreed guideline. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that especially with biographies we should strictly keep to WP:DEFINING since biography articles too often contain a huge list of categories already, so that nobody can see the wood for the trees, which just undermines the usefulness of the category system. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in Principle/Upmerge to Category:Members of the Fabian Society. While these people do seem definined by their socialism and that is often intertwined with their Fabian Society activities, the couple hundred people in this category (of which I clicked on like 20) don't seem defined by what appears to be a volunteer stint in this executive role. (We have a parent category for any member though which is not nominated so I don't favor a straight deletion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Springs (mechanical)

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: no consensus, also because the category page hasn't been tagged for CfD. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2D, consistency with main article's name
I nominated this category for a speedy rename in WP:CFDS to match the main article, Spring (device)‎. The underlying nomination wasn't controversial but it started a discussion with @Black Falcon and Armbrust: about whether the paranthetical disambiguation should be a singular "(device)" or a plural "(devices)". - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Original Speedy Discussion

−

−

−

−

Relisted from CFD 2019 March 22 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 8 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:European disability organisations

Nominator's rationale: Per the categories under Category:Disability organizations by country. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kumkum Bhagya portal

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: category has already been deleted per WP:G6 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one page in the cat. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:29, 8 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:Mint 400 Records album covers

Nominator's rationale: Absent-mindedly, I nominated Category:Album covers by label rather than this root category. The deletion result of the parent shows there’s no need for a “by label” categorization of album covers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It just seem like a road that we wouldn't want to go down for every record label to group such disparate and otherwise unrelated album covers. What interest/point would there be to categorize File:Jingle_Bell_Jazz.png and File:Acdcironman.jpg in Category:Columbia Records album covers? At least when looking in Category:Melissa Etheridge album covers, someone might actually be interested in viewing the other covers by that artist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 March 22 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we categorize by defining characteristics. "Album cover for Mint 400 Records Presents Nirvana In Utero" appears to be (1) an album cover; (2) Mint Records; (3) Nirvana. It would hardly be overcategorization to have 3 categories. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power stations in Lithuania by city

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 and merge. Delete Category:Power stations in Lithuania by city and merge the other categories. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories contain only 1-3 articles. There is no second merge target Category:Power stations in Lithuania because these power stations are already in one of the "by-type" subcategories of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 8 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:Islamist insurgents

Nominator's rationale: We do not currently have a category for insurgents; this was recently discussed and then merged to Category:Rebels, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_13#Category:Insurgents. The members of this category do not appear to be participants in an Insurgency, i.e. rebels who are not recognized as lawful combatants. Rather, they are Islamists who are regarded by others as having committed or supported terrorism. We do not categorise people directly as "terrorists" since that is a contentious label, but I suggest that this category might form a useful sub-category under Category:People charged with terrorism, and should be renamed accordingly. It would then need to be purged somewhat, e.g. I believe Roshonara Choudhry is more appropriately categorised in Category:Islamist criminals. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masood Azhar should be moved to Category:Leaders of Islamic terror groups
Shamil Basayev is already in Category:Islamist mass murderers
The Beatles (terrorist cell) is already in Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members
Abdul Nacer Benbrika should be moved to Category:Leaders of Islamic terror groups
Osama bin Laden is already in Category:Leaders of Islamic terror groups
Roshonara Choudhry is already in Category:Islamist criminals
Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti is already in Category:Afghan al-Qaeda members
Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook is already in Category:Hamas members
Sharif Mobley does not seem to belong here
Tal'at Fu'ad Qasim is already in Category:Leaders of Islamic terror groups
Richard Reid should be moved to Category:Islamist criminals
Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar is already in Category:Kashmiri militants
- Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any use of the word "terrorist/terrorism" per WP:TERRORIST. I agree that it would be nice to find a better word than "insurgent", but introducing the loaded term "terrorism" into the title is worse that the current title.
How about Category:Violent islamists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The suggested name does not exactly work, because it depends on there being somebody (presumably a state authority) to lay a charge; also it would exclude those who died (e.g. by suicide) before arrest. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges by city

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: no consensus. Scope is unclear, consensus is unclear, and a fresh nomination is recommended. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 1 or 2 articles about bridges in these cities. A merge to "bridges in country" is not needed because all articles about bridges are already in a "type of bridge in country" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I don't see any of these categories fitting that definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT provides two contradictory criteria, in the second line it says "no realistic potential for growth" which is in my view considerably more relaxing than "by their very definition". The "by their very definition" clause can nearly always be appealed to and if we would literally stick to it it would in practice imply that we would abolish WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: are you saying that you have actually made an assessment of the "realistic potential for growth" of each of the nominated categories?
If you had done so, I would have expected such research to be mentioned in the nomination, rather than simply citing current size. But if you have done such an assessment, maybe you could explain how it was done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose !vote struck on the basis of Marco's comment of 14th Jan. DexDor (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of bridges by city
  1. Nijmegen - 3 [1]. Probability of additional bridges = 0.0001
  2. Feel free to add more. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, can you explain your math? DexDor (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes cease to be funny when you have to explain them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the others. Furius (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Basically no consensus after almost 3 months, hopefully some more discussion will yield a result
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is a new thing. Is @Fayenatic london: going down the path of snippiness so favoured by other admins? I hope not. Regarding my map-reading, my post above counted 3 bridges over the Waal in the city of Nijmegen. Though not named, they are the Waalbrug, the Nijmegen railway bridge and the Oversteek. Editor @Furius: above mentions the last named, the Oversteek, so that was included in my count. He also mentions the Snelbinder which is not actually a distinct bridge in itself but rather a paved section of the Waalbrug, already counted. Lastly he mentions the Nieuwe Hezelpoort which is an inland railway bridge in the city (i.e. it does not cross the Waal). It's hard to believe that a perfectly ordinary railway bridge is worthy of an article, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that it does. So that brings the count to 4; still not meeting the threshold. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:35, 13 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:Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT
Williams was a major manufacturer of classic physical pinball machines in the 1970s and 1980s and all of those models are categorized in Category:Williams pinball machines. In 2011, an electronic video game came out that allowed you to play simulations of those old time pinball machines on the Wii and PlayStation game consoles. This is not a museum or an award. Rather, the pinball machine models that appeared in Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection are what make up this category which doesn't seem defining. The contents of this category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Fastpitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame inductees

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) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Each year, the National Fastpitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame gives out 8 diffrent awards and this is one of them. As far as I can tell, there is no associated brick and mortar museum. The large majority of articles just make a passing reference in a list of honours in the body or the infobox. (A handful mention it in the lede but mostly from a single editor.) All of these articles are already well categorized in the specific school subcategories of the Category:College softball coaches in the United States tree. This award just doesn't seem defining. The contents of this category are already listified both here within the main article and in this template. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 8 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_8&oldid=893292234"