Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 2

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

edit

Incorrect rodent "breeds" categories

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. All entries in the nominated categories are alreasy in the category trees of the species, so there's nothing to merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: These are not breeds, and contain nothing but a) Category:Laboratory mouse strains & Fancy mouse, and b) Category:Laboratory rat strains, respectively. Both of the strains categories are already present in their parent biological categories (Category:House mouse and Category:Rats, respectively), and listed as {{See also}} items at Category:Mammal breeds. The article (and similar articles or section on pet rats, gerbils, hamsters, and chinchillas) are already categorized correctly under their parent species categories or subcats thereof), and in Category:Rodents as pets. Note: Category:Rabbit breeds is legitimate, and correctly categorized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:21, 3 October 2015 (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:Biographical films about fashion designers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge A film about a fashion designer -- i.e. a person who designs fashion -- is by definition a biographical film. So I can't see why all such articles can't be in parent Category:Films about fashion designers, including the documentary category Category:Documentary films about fashion designers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I suppose in theory one could put out a film about a fictional fashion designer, which would thus not be a "biographical" film — but that's rare enough (I'm not aware of any offhand, and none have been categorized as such) that even if a handful of such films actually did exist, having separate categories to sequester them from the biographical films about real-world fashion designers would still fall afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the existence of some grey areas, where inclusion may be debatable, is not in and of itself an argument against the creation of a category for the clearcut cases where there's no room for debate — of the films in the nominated category, I don't see a single one where there's even a question, as every last one of them is so fundamentally 100% about the fashion designer that said designer's name is even embedded right into the film's title. There may indeed be an argument to be made that both categories should be deleted entirely — but that argument isn't it. It's a good argument in cases of "artworks about abstract/generic concept", absolutely — "films about love", "songs about coffee", "books about rain", etc. — but it doesn't work across the board for all categories that happen to have the word "about" in them, because sometimes the subject is an objective and quantifiable and specific thing whose degree of "aboutness" can be concretely determined. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (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:Works by actor

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to me to simply be a recreation, in altered form, of what was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_27#Category:Films_directed_by_actors. Yes, the "x" of "x by y" has changed -- but is there a logical reason why the consensus at the previous Cfd shouldn't apply? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2015 (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.

Brandenburg-Prussia

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 and delete as nominated. After weighing the comments in this discussion, the opposition had very weak arguments to retain the categories. Other stuff exists, which should not impede in this discussion. If a plethora of articles can be created to allow the categories to properly expand, then so be it; however, that time is not now, and these categories were created a little too soon. — ξxplicit 08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of 19 intermediate container categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few "by period" articles in a relatively short-living (1618-1701) state, there are just a few treaties and a few establishments. Currently we have many times more categories than articles, including millennium categories, that is pretty absurd. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery! Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with adjustments to targets but with the additional target Category:17th century in Brandenburg-Prussia. This was a major state of the Holy Roman Empire and should have its own category. I am far from sure that merging direct to Europe categories is appropriate. Brandenburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, whereas Prussia was not: this is a difficulty, which I cannot see an easy solution to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2015 (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:Makradeo

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2015 (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:Newa Talai

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (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:Kherwara Chhaoni

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (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:Classical music articles by quality

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; without prejudice to re-creation if things change and the relevant wikiproject desires to begin using this system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music does not assess articles and so all these categories (absent the articles one) is empty. Suggest deletion and upmerger of Category:WikiProject Classical music articles to Category:WikiProject Classical music Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nothing prevents individual participants in WP:CLASSICAL from assessing articles; wikiprojects do not tell their participants what to do, and article assessment is a normal WP-wide process. These categories are expected by the wikiproject banner metatemplating system, and would result in category redlinks on thousands of articles' talk pages. Persons outside participation in the wikiproject also have an interest in how an article has been assessed. Finally, WP:CLASSICAL could decide next year, or five minutes from now, that they do in fact want to collectively work on article assessment, so these categories would just need to be recreated. Such an outcome is likely in the long haul.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a technical level, I don't think Template:WikiProject Classical music allows for assessments. The articles aren't going into the various subcategories so I don't see why it's better to keep categories that have been empty for five or six years (it's been discussed and rejected since 2009) rather than recreate them if the project changes its mind. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2015 (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.

Late medieval earthquakes

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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few notable earthquakes in these past centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery! Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- another unnecessary tree of twigs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2015 (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:Stephen Foster tribute albums

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; merge article to Category:Tribute albums and the new Category:Stephen Foster. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has one article listed. The article itself is in pretty poor shape and certainly doesn't need its own category. The article smacks of spam since the only ref takes you to a music review site that sells the album Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2015 (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:Electors of Baden

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:   Relisted at 2015 OCT 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a pointless category since Baden existed as an electorate for only three years, from 1803 to 1806. Before 1803 Baden was a margraviate, while after ending the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Baden became a grand duchy. Likewise for Württemberg which became an electorate in 1803 and a kingdom in 1806. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (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:Inmates of Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been a prisoner at Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale is not defining for a person in the same way that being a prisoner in a particular prison might be. It is a low-security prison and there is nothing particularly "notorious" about it or its inmates. There are several categories in Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison which don't need to exist, and this is one of them. A list has been started here, so there is no need to listify. All of the articles are also in Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government, so there is also no need to merge to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge back) -- I do not know about USA, but in my country, prisoners are periodically moved between prisons, so that being an inmate of any one of them is a NN temporary characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't categorize people by where they live from time to time (even if it's 25 years to life) except through the "people from" tree; this doesn't fit that and putting in a whole new structure for prisoners or dorm-inhabitants, or fraternity-house-inhabitants, or whatever one's living conditions may be or once have been doesn't seem a good idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2015 (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/2015_October_2&oldid=1074815609"