Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MER-C (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 16 November 2019 (→Category:Autobot subgroups: deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 7 November 9 >

November 8

Category:Traditions by university or college

Nominator's rationale: There arent enough traditions for subcategories for individual institutions Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That is what is in the category, and it matches the parent Category:Student culture ‎ Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autobot subgroups

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 (merge and delete are equivalent). MER-C 10:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minor, unnecessary category TTN (talk) 17:48, 8 November 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:Lists of Fellows of the Royal Society

Nominator's rationale: Case fix per various recent discussions and article renamings. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waist aprons

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: speedily deleted WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by mistake. Sorry. Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 8 November 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:Franz Kafka characters

Nominator's rationale: Redirect-only category. I have no idea if it could potentially be populated, but it currently has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington International University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Washington International University is a diploma mill. There can be legitimate questions wether such diploma mills can have alumni, and wether holding a degree from one can be a defining characteristic. Here's a link to the deletion discussion about a previous such category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psychology terminology

Nominator's rationale: delete, the articles are not about terminology. The titles of these articles may be terms, but articles should be categorized by the article's topic. There is no need to merge, the articles are already in other appropriate psychology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless and until a more systemic solution can be found. All of our terminology categories are like this (see, e.g., the parent Category:Medical terminology). The problem is that the word terminology has been broadened in everyday use to mean more than the study or systematics of terms within a field, to just refer to the terms themselves. We either need to use a different word or just accept that these categories will include both articles on terms and articles on systems/sets of terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical virtual communities

Nominator's rationale: much the same thing, but slightly wider scope. Arguably motherhood and pregnancy are not medical conditions, but they generate similar needs for support. No definition article for either, and support groups is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 28 October[[:Category:Medical associations 2019 (UTC)
  • Question, three articles are about professionals' (physicians') networks. While they do not belong in a support group category, where should we leave them? 06:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaboration with the British Empire

Nominator's rationale: I am nominating this category and all subcats for deletion. They are POV cats created by Claíomh Solais, who was blocked for disruptive editing of anti-Western nature. The people in these categories are already in other relevant categories (e.g. subcats of Category:Spies) or don't belong at all. For an example of the latter, Alexander Halpern, currently in Category:Russian collaborators with the British Empire, fled from the Soviet Union and later worked for MI6 during World War II. He was not a collaborator, just a refugee. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Irish collaborators with the British Empire was already listed for deletion. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this clearly seems disruptive edit. Looking at the French category, it is filled with people linked to several British WWII outfits such as the SOE. Knowing that France was actually allied with the UK in WWII, and that it was occupied by Germany and not Britain, the LABELs of collaborators and British Empire are both laughable and anachronic. I would have expected to see the people who made the Quiberon landing possible, but this does not seem to be the orientation, or knowledge, of the great. Place Clichy (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure -- Collaboration is a pejorative term whose use implies a lack of NPOV. I am glad that the creator has been blocked. Nevertheless, some of what he/she produced does provide genuine categories, which need to be renamed. Rather than "British Empire" which was always a nebulous entity, I would put United Kingdom.
  • American: this is about loyalists during the American War of Independence, who sided with "Great Britain" In this case, not British Empire. Suggest Category:Loyalists during American War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Danish, French, 1 German (a Jewish refugee) and 1 Spaniard were in some form participating in the Allied struggle against the Axis powers in WWII: the French should perhaps be categorised as "Free French". The other Spaniard does not appear to fit here at all.
  • Russian: one was a refugee a "White Russian", who spied for UK in WWII. The other was a defector (outside the theme of the others).
  • Italian and Indian (one person) was an ant-fascist refugee who fought for UK in WWII.
Suggest Rename to Fooian people in British service in WWII, but purge 1 Spaniard and the Russian defector (possibly a few more). However perhaps someone knows of a suitable category into which such people might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Steven Dale Jones

Nominator's rationale: Delete Until this songwriter's notability is confirmed by the existence of a Wikipedia article, we should not have a category for these songs. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category is the collection of songs by a common defining item, the songwriter. Whether the songwriter is individually notable does not concern the categorisation of the songs. There is no guideline which suggests that an article should exist for the category to exist, only that if both exist the category should follow the naming of the article. NB Many similar cats have been nominated and none have been deleted. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because Steven Dale Jones isn't notable per se, but because this category is non-defining. For any of the songs in this category, do RS commonly and consistently refer to it as a song written by Steven Dale Jones? Not as far as I can tell. Yes, a song's writer can be a defining characteristic, but usually because the writer is particularly notable. Being written by Oscar Hammerstein is a defining characteristic of My Favorite Things (song). Being written by Max Martin is a characteristic of ...Baby One More Time (song). Being written by Meghan Trainor is a defining characteristic of Ain't Your Mama. Because these writers are all commonly discussed in RS when talking about the respective song. Not the case here. Colin M (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all but one of the songs mention SDJ in the first sentence. The writer of a song is self-evidently defining. Oculi (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Questionable

Nominator's rationale: Category is no longer used by the Questionable Cabal and also has pointed out to be in violation of WP:NOTFORUM . Upsidedown Keyboard ...? (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the category is now empty after the template that was in it got speedy-deleted G7 after the author (same as nom for this CfD) declared it abandoned. Ikluft (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trololo

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: Speedy deleted. as vandalism. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessness DBaK (talk) 10:43, 8 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: * Previous discussion

I think this was an oversight. All the member articles of this category are stylized "Timeline of healthcare in X." It stands to reason that this category should match. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need a well-attended RFC tbh. It's absurd to me that the original RM closed as no consensus (no consensus to rename AND no consensus against it), but somehow there was consensus found in this thread to rename the categories. This is all backwards, and the what the categories are named shouldn't be determining what the articles are called. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to me that an article which isn't in this category, which doesn't have consensus for its current name, would be what we would use for the name here. There were a total of four comments in the last discussion, and none of them considered the fact the articles within each category were not all named in the same convention.
Maybe the best path forward is to start another move request since we clearly disagree with the process here. What are your thoughts on that? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_8&oldid=926435543"