Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7

Category:Wrestlers who retired due to injury

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wrestlers who retired due to injury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is more a case of WP:DNWAUC than WP:DEFINING. It's the only "retired due to" category in enwiki. DexDor (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't necessarily matter to me what happens to this category. I just thought it would be worthwhile to categorize the wrestlers who had to leave the game due to medical reasons. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete we shouldn't start a scheme of categorizing reasons why people left a profession. The only exceptions I can think of are things like heads of state who were assassinated, but a sportsman stopping sports because of injury is sadly common.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is being old also a 'medical reason' for retiring? If so that is surely 99% of the profession! Giant Snowman 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obi-Wan....William 12:10, 9 April 2014 (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:Young Entrepreneur

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) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Young Entrepreneur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Subjective, no parents, only one article, incorrectly ~~categorized~~capitalized ... DexDor (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the creator: I found this category when searching for categories that would fit a particular article that I was editing (which has since been deleted by those within Wikipedia who are apparently wiser than me). The category was inactive (in red) but tied to the article that remains in it. So I finished the creation process (which I was invited to do). It should likely have been made a subcategory to the Entrepreneurship category. I believe the category is as valid as many others on Wikipedia (I know, several wrongs don't make a right), but I suppose the question is, When does someone cross the line from 'young' to 'old' entrepreneur? In that sense, it is somewhat subjective -- but I still maintain that young achievers, no matter what the field, should be recognized if they are in fact exceptional. Dianafletcherdezeeuw (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A category should fit into the wider tree of categories; we don't have "Category:Entrepreneurs" - businesspeople are categorized in Category:Businesspeople by nationality etc and (where appropriate) in Category:Child businesspeople. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete we don't have entrepreneur cats since the term is overused. You can be a founder of a company, and you can be notable as a child, but a 20 year old starting a company happens all the time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to DexDor - April 8 I'm all for consistency. The existing category "Entrepreneurship" is not quite the same as "Entrepreneur". If I had started this category from scratch (rather than finishing what someone else had started), I would have likely worked within the "businesspeople" sphere. Perhaps the remaining article in the "Young Entrepreneur" category could be moved to the existing "Child businesspeople" category if appropriate. Dianafletcherdezeeuw (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dianafletcherdezeeuw. You did create this category. In response to your earlier comment: "inactive category" is not term used in wp categorization. I think you're referring to a redlink that appears if someone adds/modifies a category tag so that it doesn't match any current category. Clicking on such a redlink displays a message "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact title. To avoid redundancy, please browse the existing categories before creating this page.". Is this the "invite" you referred to? DexDor (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DexDor. I discovered this category when searching for existing categories that suited an article that I was editing. It was red-linked in the article that remains in it. So I completed the creation process after browsing some other categories that just didn't quite fit. If it's redundant, and the article that remains in it can be linked to a more suitable category, I'm all for it.Dianafletcherdezeeuw (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you created the category. When you were creating it you may also have seen a "has been previously deleted" message as a result of a CFD in 2006. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "discover" a category that isn't there to be discovered — and the difference between "completed the creation process" and "created the category" would be, er, what exactly? Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2014 (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:11th-century in the United States

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 to Category:11th century in North America. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:11th-century in the United States to Category:11th-century in North America
Nominator's rationale we have already scrapped categories like category:1769 establishments in the United States because they are hopelessly anachronistic. This category is just much worse is that regard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "North America" is an anachronism as well. Vespucci lived long after the 11th century so the continent wasn't named "North America" in the 11th century.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:11th century in North America per nom. The continent of North America certainly existed in the 11th century. Kennethaw88 • talk 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as part of a continuing cleanup effort. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kennethaw88. The continental category does not need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2014 (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.

4th century in Guatemala

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. There is a clear consensus to merge in this case, and there has been a fairly consistent and long-standing consensus at CFD not to use anachronistic geographical categorisation.
However, two editors (Simon Burchell and Good Ol’factory) made a good case that the well-defined boundaries of a modern state are a logical way of grouping topics relating to the history of that area before it became a state. They may wishto open an RFC to consider this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:4th century in Guatemala to Category:4th century in Central America
Nominator's rationale Guatemala is initially a colonial Spanish creation. It did no exist in the 4th century. Central America, as a geographic, not political, entity will work, although I have to admit part of me feels Meso-America might be a better name. Seperating southern Mexico and Guatemala in the 4th century does not really work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and precedent. Guatemala is no exception to the rule, either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the category makes it easier to go back within a perticular territorial area, while staying focused. Granted that Guatemala did not exist as a country in the 4th century, but merging to a much larger geographical region is not helpful when looking for specific subregions. This also keeps related articles within the Guatemalan category tree, when these articles clearly fall within the scope of Guatemala. Central America covers a large area, with many cultural subdivisions. I see no fundamental difference with, for example, Category:5th century in England, when England did not exist in the 5th century. BTW, the modern country of Guatemala takes its name from an earlier pre-Columbian polity covering a much smaller region. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not fall within the scope of Guatemala. They are about people who never knew of this thing called "Guatemala", even less so than Muslims living in 15th-century Haifa knew of the nation of Israel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is not about what people in the 4th century knew, it is a tool for finding articles. Any articles within the category should fall within the modern geographical boundaries of Guatemala. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Central America" is an anachronism as well, named after a 15th-century figure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - dispose of all anachronistic cats.GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The southern end of the continent of North America certainly existed in the 4th century. Kennethaw88 • talk 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal hasn't been posted either at WikiProject Guatemala, WikiProject Central America or WikiProject Mesoamerica, all of which are relevant. I don't have time at the moment, but would appreciate it if someone could do the honours. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted, the category may be used for categorizing things in the 4th century that took place within the current borders of Guatemala. Historians use this type of naming all of the time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We have a recent but well-established precedent that we do not have categories for countries before they existed. The England case is a bad precedent, which might merit being merged to a Britain category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted to some talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is a better precedent is the cases where similar categories have been removed after discussions. Categories only need one person to think they are a good idea to have them be created. Lastly, after the Crimea-crisis, I would think people would now accept we are better off not setting historic categories to "present" boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is unchanged by the Crimea situation. I think it remains the case that state boundaries are reasonably fixed in today's world; certainly they are fixed to a degree that is unprecedented in human history. I can see both sides, which is why I have suggested that it's OK to have both types of categories co-exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 23 April 2014 (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.

American expatriate soccer people

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. Per comments, I am upmerging each to the corresponding "FOOian expatriate sportspeople in BAR", since those currently exist as parent categories in all of these cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Canadian expatriate soccer people in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per consensus at this recent CFD; non-notable triple intersections, see WP:OC#NARROW. Existing categories are more than suitable. Giant Snowman 17:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, upmerge all to Category:American expatriates in Fooia for each - these are subsubcats of Category:Expatriates by country of residence. The recent CfD cited should have considered such an upmerge as well. Mayumashu (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother, Just delete it, there's no hope for those cats to even survive anymore now that those 2 are gone. Dwscomet (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge rather than delete, to avoid loss of data. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (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:The Narrative songs

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) 02:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Narrative songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Band songs" category whose only entry is a list of the songs. If we ever actually have keepable articles about the individual songs themselves, then this might be warranted — but right now it's just an unnecessary WP:SMALLCAT violation. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2014 (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.