[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4

[edit]

Category:Album covers by label

[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. There's a consensus to delete, but the nomination was a bit pointless because the only content was a subcategory Category:Mint 400 Records album covers. If the nomination had deleted Category:Mint 400 Records album covers, then Category:Album covers by label would have been speedy- deleted as empty ... but now are left with albums still categorised by label.
Pinging the participants @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, NorthPark1417, and Richhoncho: does anyone want to do a followup nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've seen album cover image files categorized by recording artist and visual artist, but as far as I can tell this is the first attempt to categorize such files by record label. Some labels could have thousands of album covers and the relationship of these covers beyond the label is tenuous at best. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of the category. I created categories for the artists, leaving the label releases. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a mishmash of nothingness! There are one, possibly two incidences where this has any relevance at all. In which case there should be an article about the importance of those album covers by record company. The relevant category, if any, should then be, lists of album covers by label. Category linkage without explanation on dubious grounds is not helping anybody. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 10 March 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:Power Architecture

[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: moot, but speedy delete as empty.
@99Electrons, bringing a category to CFD when you have already emptied it is pointless, because there is nothing left to keep. Much better to leave the category populated, and make a CFD nomination which links to discussion which decided the category was a bad idea. Then the discssion here can decide there is a wider consensus to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia regarding the Power Architecture in general, which included this is category, resulted in a consensus that this category provides little benefit to Wikipedia, and that this category should be deleted. This category has been depopulated after a consensus was reached. Disclosure: I initiated the discussion and depopulated the category. 99Electrons (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the articles that were categorized under the Power Architecture category belonged in it because the definition of Power Architecture is marketing nonsense. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia explains in detail why the term is meaningless, and why its over-enthusiastic use on Wikipedia was not of any benefit. Every article that was in this category was already categorized meaningfully, and if it wasn't, then it was categorized meaningfully when it was removed from this category. 99Electrons (talk) 22:12, 12 March 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:James FitzGerald

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary parent for a single child category, Category:Works by James FitzGerald, which serves its purpose on its own. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:04, 4 March 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:British honours system

[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: British honours system redirects to Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. No other equivalent category exists for other countries, as all other equivalent existing "honours system" redirects to "Orders, decorations, and medals of X" per WP:CONSISTENCY. PPEMES (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply untrue to say, "No other equivalent category exists for other countriesIt is not correct that "as all other equivalent existing "honours system" redirects to "Orders, decorations, and medals of X"" Category:Honours systems has about 11 other articles that are not redirects. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:British honours system should include topics such as Birthday Honours‎, Dissolution Honours‎, Prime Minister's Resignation Honours‎, New Year Honours, Coronation Honours‎ and controversies about honours. The titles themselves and their recipients should be in the subcat Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Did the category change since your observation above about there being 11 categories for other countries' Honours? I only found one other category: Category:New Zealand Royal Honours System (and that is used instead of not in addition to Orders, decorations, and medals). RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I should have said "articles" - but the point is the same. You can't say this is a uniquely UK thing. The nom also seems to mix up categories and articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I argued in the way RevelationDirect did. Sorry for any inconvenience. PPEMES (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a misunderstanding not a deceptive nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 11 March 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:Billy Wilder

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:37, 4 March 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:James Ivory

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:15, 4 March 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:Ralph Bakshi

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:15, 4 March 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:Mary Cassatt

[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 (non-admin closure). I have added the biography as the main article in the header of the works category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can go in Category:Works by Mary Cassatt. --woodensuperman 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you've now set up an entirely pointless intermediate-level category, only containing these, the main bio, the list, and the portal which will soon be deleted. Well done! That is the one which should be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the "Works by..." category tree is a much more acceptable tree than these eponymous ones. It is certainly not pointless, as it allows placement of Category:Works by Mary Cassatt in Category:Works by artist. You should have created it when you created Category:Prints by Mary Cassatt. The eponymous category is the pointless one. --woodensuperman 14:34, 12 March 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:James Montgomery Flagg

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:14, 4 March 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:Invasive plant species

[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. To assist anyone working o the topic, e.g. by list-making, I have left a list of the category's contents at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Invasive_plant_species. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
1) Better phrasing for such a category would be "Invasive plants" as "invasive species" is, despite having the taxonomic rank "species" in its name, sometimes used to refer to genera or higher taxon ranks. "Invasive plant species" (vs "invasive plants" or "invasive species—plants" implies that the category should only contain articles about species. Splitting up invasive species by taxonomic rank is not typical and would not be helpful. See new category Category:Invasive plants.
2) Categorizing species as invasive without specifying where they are invasive or who said they are invasive is not appropriate. The status of a plant as invasive-or-not can be controversial. The 600+ taxon articles in this category need to be moved to a well-referenced list. If the use of categories is recommended, they would need to be split into much finer grain system by location and/or designation (i.e. called invasive by whom?).
Some background/related discussions:
—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. A plant species is invasive if it has a tendency to displace native plants and take over an area. There are many plants that can be transplanted to new areas without becoming disruptive of these areas, and relatively few that will tend to take over the new area. As for the controversy in deeming a plant invasive, that is easily resolved by turning to reliable sources that describe plants as invasive or not. I would totally agree with subdividing this category both by region where the plant is invasive, and by region from which the invasive plant originates. bd2412 T 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts; can you clarify your stance here with regards to point #1 and the existence of the other category, Category:Invasive plants? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That the main article says "The criteria for invasive species has been controversial, as widely divergent perceptions exist among researchers as well as concerns with the subjectivity of the term "invasive"." shows that this isn't a suitable characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't trust Wikipedia articles too much. There are real controversies around how to define invasive species - for example, the USDA definition defines invasiveness in terms of economic impact, while almost everyone else uses ecological or environmental impacts as well. And yes, a lot of people use it loosely, as a synonym for "introduced" or "naturalised", but that doesn't remove the utility of the category. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacing with "Cat:Invasive plants" with a requirement that it just be a container category for invasive plants in broad biogeographic regions (which is how plants are categorised anyway). And, obviously, any listed species need supporting citations. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how exactly this would play out. Many (most?) of the articles currently in Category:Invasive plant species do not have reliable sources discussing invasiveness. Would that category be deleted, and whosoever might decide to rebuild the biogeographic/reference-supported category system could do so piece by piece at Category:Invasive plants (which may be no one)? Whose definition of invasive do we use?
How could broad biogeographic areas be devised, referenced, or maintained for invasiveness? How do we require or track that reliable references are included before addition to a category? How would controversial invasive-or-not plants be categorized? Or plants that may be invasive in one U.S. state, but just a benign weed or even native in another? Some taxa could end up with dozens or hundreds of categories for each area and/or designation of invasiveness.
As an example, how to categorize Solidago sempervirens? It is considered by some as invasive in the Midwest, including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ontario (at least), though the USDA contradicts that, saying "it is not considered an invasive plant", and it's actually native to the east coast.
Nativity/endemism, the existing broad geographic categories for taxa on Wikipedia, are much better referenced with clearer and generally more agreed-upon definitions than "invasiveness" and can't really be used as an analogous system here. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus to get rid of this category, but not on where to put the articles currently in it. Do we delete with no further action? Do we merge them somewhere? Do we manually split them into categories by region (an idea which seems to have at least some support)? Further discussion should focus on exactly what we're doing to this category before getting rid of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 05:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See #1 under the nominator's rationale. I would think C:Invasive plant species by region should be renamed C:Invasive plants by region, no? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without further action (the latter added upon request of the admin who relisted). In the articles that I checked, the region of invasiveness was too broad (like, the Americas) or the article was already in a specific regional category of invasiveness. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without further action As per others' comments, invasiveness must relate to a region, so it's wrong to have a top category not mentioning region. Articles here can only be recategorized one by one by looking to see what sources say is the relevant region, there's no fixed alternative. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 20 March 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:Modern primitive movement

[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: rename. There was no consensus on deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not entirely sure this actually qualifies as a movement. Regardless, it's a tiny category, with two of the articles both well-linked thru the third (main) article. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 4 March 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:Festivals in Former Yugoslavia

[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:
  • purge both categories of festivals established post-1991
then
Pinging the nominator @Bearcat and participants @SportingFlyer + @Marcocapelle: please would you three be kind enough to implement this?
(Note: to select pages --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Everything here is already properly categorized as being in Serbia or Bosnia or Croatia or Kosovo or Montenegro as it is, so categorizing them for the country they used to be in alongside that is simply redundant and unnecessary. Especially given that some of the entries here didn't start until after Yugoslavia broke up, and were thus never "in Yugoslavia" in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically to solicit feedback surrounding the merge/rename suggestion that cropped up late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 05:21, 4 March 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.
Implementation comment, none of the electronic music festivals (in the subcategory) appeared to be pre-1991, which means after purging the subcategory had to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Rostov Oblast

[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At this time, there is not enough content in either parent to support this intersection. Similar categories were recently upmerged (see here and here). (Pinging the category's creator, User:Leonid Dobrov) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:57, 4 March 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:Sistanian poetry

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content in this category or either parent to justify a subcategory. If there is no consensus to merge, then rename per Category:Sistani culture. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:37, 4 March 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:Reformed State churches in Switzerland

[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: rename to Category:Reformed cantonal churches in Switzerland. MER-C 18:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename: (a) rename churches to Churches because these are church organisations with Church as part of their proper name; (b) rename State to canton, since canton (country subdivision) is accepted Wikipedia terminology for subdivisions of Switzerland. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Reformed state churches in Switzerland (decapitalised "State").
By convention, a foo-by-bar category is a container for a set of subcats by bar. That is not the case here, so @Marcocapelle's proposal doesn't work.
These are literally "state churches" (Landeskirche), emanations of the state. The category title should respect that, and not invent its own terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, do we toss a coin to choose between a term which was accurate when the church was founded, or one which reflects the situation since federation?
I can see arguments either way, but I'd be inclined to avoid that and go with whatever translation of Landeskirche is used by contemporary English-language scholars of Swiss religious structures. It's not my field, so I dunno that answer ... but it occurs to me that the answer might be that they avoid the issue by just using "Landeskirche" as a loanword. If so, then Wikipedia should do the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here the expression is "cantonal churches". So that would yield Category:Reformed cantonal churches in Switzerland. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 20 March 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_March_4&oldid=898758411"