Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 31: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Category:Wikipedian disc golfers: sign unsigned cmt, close as delete
Tag: Reverted
Line 130: Line 130:


==== Category:Wikipedian disc golfers ====
==== Category:Wikipedian disc golfers ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''delete''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions|non-admin closure]])</small> <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)<!-- Template:Cfd top -->
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Wikipedian disc golfers}}
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Wikipedian disc golfers}}
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Fails [[WP:USERCAT]] for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Fails [[WP:USERCAT]] for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pppery|Pppery]] ([[User talk:Pppery#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pppery|contribs]]) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

Revision as of 17:48, 7 April 2024

< March 30
April 1 >

March 31

Category:Arabian freedmen

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the article is still in Category:Slaves from the Abbasid Caliphate. Presumably it was not standard to free one's slaves but I can imagine that a larger proportion of notable slaves have been freed, so that the concepts are more overlapping in Wikipedia than they were in everyday medieval life. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me Mason (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monochamini

Nominator's rationale: The article Monochamini redirects to Lamiini where they are listed as synonyms. Pichpich (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century Maltese philosophers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one person in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of .Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Moldavia

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one bishop in here, which isn't very helpful for navgation Mason (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category.[1] Mason (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? Mason (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Africa

Nominator's rationale: There's not enough content to justify this level of diffusion. Please be aware that the IP making all of these requests is being extremely disruptive on CFD. And is evading their block Mason (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With eight and six articles respectively (and more to come) would you consider differently? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Define what's "not enough content". There are many churches in the oldest former colonies which date back to the 17th or 16th century. Meanwhile @Samasongarrison please clarify your point about IP being disruptive. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the closer, the ip is most likely: WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LTAHKGW? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malawian music by city

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization of a small number of articles -- in both Blantyre and Lilongwe, the creator started "Musicians from [City]" categories that are fine on their own, but then vastly overdid everything else around them.
Firstly, they do not each require a separate "singers" subcategory: the musicians categories have just ten and seven articles in them, respectively, which is not large enough to require diffusion for different types of musicians, and the singers subcategories in turn have just two and four articles in them -- and obviously if the singers categories aren't necessary, then neither is Category:Malawian singers by city.
Secondly, with just two categories they don't need a dedicated Category:Malawian musicians by city container either, and can just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians.
Thirdly, they also don't need "Music in (City)" parents that don't have anything else in them (and have nothing else in the "City" parents that can be refiled into them either), which also vitiates the need for Category:Malawian music by city.
Fourthly, neither Category:People from Blantyre nor Category:People from Lilongwe have enough occupational subcategories to require chunking them out into "People from X by occupation" containers, and if those aren't needed then Category:Malawian people by city and occupation and Category:Malawian people by occupation and city also aren't needed either.
Again, the musicians subcategories themselves are fine, but they don't need any of these as parent or child categories -- they can both just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians and the appropriate "People from X", and don't need this many layers of redundancy added to their family trees. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom, this makes navigation through the tree a nightmare. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, @Marcocapelle There are many articles that need to be included in the categories above that haven't yet been added. If the categories are intended to be merged or deleted, I just wonder how this survives which uses the very same style and structure. If the intention is to have at least many articles into them, well then, would you give it a little time as I would look for articles to add into them (or even create some). Hopefully Wikipedia is work in progress. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because that exists doesn't mean this has to as well, because it's entirely within the realm of possibility that that shouldn't exist either. Nothing stops anybody from creating any unwarranted thing at any time, so the existence of one thing is not automatically validation for the existence of another. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Kenya

Nominator's rationale: rename, seems a straightforward case of WP:C2D but having this for full discussion just in case it isn't that straightforward. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support I see no reason to object and it is indeed close to a WP:C2D. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab-Jewish culture in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename as part of as part of Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora. This suggestion had some support at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Category:Arab-Jewish culture in the United States. "Diaspora" would match some parent categories such as Egyptian-Jewish diaspora. I acknowledge that these are also part of Jewish culture by country, but IMHO conforming within Arab-Jewish diaspora would be most helpful. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the proposed names clarify better what these categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meta-Wiki autoconfirmed users

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Super Mario

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be deleted because I keep expanding the page. Hjajajsbbxb12 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a reason to keep it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Hjajajsbbxb12, the size of the page isn't a factor. If the category is kept I'd recommend cleaning up the userbox clutter. It's normal and fine to have some userboxes appear on categories like this, but the page is pretty disorganized right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:USERCATYES. In my opinion this category is totally fine per Appropriate types of user categories § Categories which group users by interest in a subject: "This includes any grouping of users by interest in a subject – that is, interest in editing articles related to a certain topic – so long as the topic is not overly narrow or vague (see below: Categories that are overly narrow in scope, Categories that are vaguely defined)." These sorts of "Wikipedians who like x" are fairly common additions to userpages and I'd say Super Mario is a large enough series with an active enough base of interested Wikipedia editors improving the subject's coverage that it's reasonable for such a category to exist. I can't see anything in WP:USERCATNO that would suggest this an example of an inappropriate user category, as I don't think it's so narrow that it cannot conceivably be relevant to a broad number of users' editing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liking something is completely different than willingness to improve the encyclopedia with respect to this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I agree. I think it could reasonably go on the userpage of a member of the WikiProject Video games Nintendo task force because it seems analagous to the very populous Category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon. Of course, one could always say that category needs to go as well and nominate it here, but I think at that point you'd have to argue there should be no "Wikipedians who like <x>" categories of any sort and they should all be deleted, but that seems like the sort of thing that would require broader discussion about user category guidelines at some other venue. So for me personally, I'd need some convincing that this category is less related to improving the encyclopedia than other analagous categories which have long been understood to be acceptable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through that discussion, I agree with what Diriector_Doc had to say. I'll add that I think a better solution (if there exists a problem in the first place) would be to rename some of these "Wikipedians who like <x>" categories to "Wikipedians interested in <x>" so long as the subject is not too narrow to realistically relate to any editing areas. One thing that stood out as confusing in that previous deletion discussion was that the nom intentionally spared "Category:Wikipedians who like Game Center CX" solely because GameCenter CX is a show rather than a video game. What does that have to do with the collaborative value of the category? The bar for being kept versus deleted should be that a subject has enough coverage on Wikipedia that there exists an editing community (which can be said about some of those deleted categories), not "delete if it's a game series, keep if it's a television series."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian disc golfers

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (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/2024_March_31&oldid=1217753529"