Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21

Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2012

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: upmerge to Category:Proposed railway stations; anyone can place an article in Category:Railway stations opened in 2012 if that category applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is time-sensitive and now outdated. All stations in category have opened and should be categorized as such. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
broader question - do we really need to sort these by year? it seems a bit crystal-ball-ish. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the history or anything about the stations in this category. I just came across it and noticed it was outdated so I brought its attention here. I don't like the idea of Category:Railway stations being constructed because this implies the stations are being constructed at the moment, when a station could be planned and it has yet to begin construction. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2013 (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:Computer pioneers

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) 04:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is problematic for many reasons - but the main one is POV. Computing and computer science continue to evolve, so the inventor of Twitter may well be a "Pioneer" in the 140-character message but I'm not sure if that was the intent of this category. As you click on various bios, they are often of people who did some work in the 50s/60s/70s, but I still fail to see how this is defining, and why *everyone* who worked during that era should thus not be awarded as a computing pioneer. I think one of its subcats, Internet pioneers, can be a bit better defined, as there was a period where the fundamental structures of the internet were being created, but computing started, well, way back in time, and things are obviously still progressing apace. I don't know what else to do with this category but delete it - otherwise it will continue to accumulate bios of people who see themselves as pioneers (and indeed, they may have been, in whatever particular sub-part of computing they were involved in). I realize there is a whole pioneers tree, I'm not ready to address that, but this one doesn't work. There is a List of pioneers in computer science which could be better sourced and populated, so I'd say we listify the key members of this cat and delete due to subjective criteria for inclusion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks any clear inclusion guidelines that allows us to definitively answer "yes" or "no" to a question of inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There ought to be tyhe basis for a valid category here, but it needs some better inclusion criteria. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is clearly not "everyone" who worked in that era, but those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Seems a pretty slim argument to delete. Of course there is judgment needed to some extent, but the category is not "good" or "bad" pioneers. At most maybe rename it to a less judgmental term like "early computer people" but that sounds odd. "Computer pioneer" seems fairly natural to me. W Nowicki (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the inclusion criteria, specifically? If we wanted something more neutral, we could have Category:Computer people of the 1940s-1960s for example, and anyone working on this issue in those days would be there. Or Category:Pre-1970s computer researchers, so we get Ada Lovelace etc.? Categories need somewhat objective inclusion criteria, and as of now it's a magnet for everyone who ever did anything new with computers, ever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The delete comments here apply to pretty much everything in the parent category Category:Pioneers by field (and of course the child category, Category:Internet pioneers). I don't think we should single out computer pioneers. I agree that the idea of "pioneers" has definitional problems, and I don't personally like the word, but there's something here with merit. For one thing, it's useful in the "history" category tree to have a subcategory of notable figures in early computing. ... Anyway, as I'm writing all this I'm thinking maybe it's just better to do it with an article or list. --Lquilter (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went after this one as it was the biggest and most full of cruft, and seemed to be stretching the definition the most. Based on what we do here, I agree, we should probably reformulate the rest of the tree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (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:New York City Football Club

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: no action: the nominated category was moved to Category:New York City FC in the middle of the discussion. No consensus to delete it.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two entries here on the exact same topic, both of which were created today. It says they aren't even due to begin playing their game until 2015. Anything could happen before then. Not all teams or organisations are given their own category anyway. 86.40.104.50 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (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:Royal Preparatory School

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:Royal College Colombo. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete -- A defunct school that has been augmented with
Royal College Colombo in December 1977. All articles relevant to Royal Preparatory School are already listed in the Category Category:Royal College Colombo, including alumni. Cossde (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (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:Harvard Centennial Medal recipients

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:Harvard University alumni. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete -- a non-defining honor from a graduate school to its alumni. This award from the Harvard Grad School of Arts & Sciences was established in 1989 and awarded from 2-4 graduates each year (7 in first year). The awardees are a disparate lot of folks, many of whom have lots of other award-winner categories on their articles, like Leon Kass, Margaret Atwood, Elaine Pagels ... This is better maintained in the list in the article for the Harvard Centennial Medal which can include footnotes, dates, and other information .... Lquilter (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2013 (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:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths

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:Five percenters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: concise and in line with aticle title. We could also merge it with
talk 10:26, 21 May 2013 (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:Qing Dynasty History

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:Qing Dynasty. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name format is non-standard. Most categories are "History of FOO". Should this be Category:History of the Qing Dynasty? or Category:History of China during the Qing Dynasty? Something else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2013 (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:Preachers

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) 04:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Re-created in 2011 after deletion at CFD 2007 Nov 3. Sparsely-populated category with no stated criteria for inclusion. Although a few of the members were especially noted for preaching, according to citations, I do not even think it would be helpful to use these to start a list. Very many of Category:Religious leaders are preachers. There is already Category:Sermon writers and I have added a few members of the nominated category into that. There is no need for a merger as all the current members are suitably categorised as clergy, chaplains, missionaries etc. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the other cats are plenty sufficient. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague. There are plenty of more specific categories to cover this. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To make things real fun, we could argue that virtually all active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to how the Church is set-up. On a more clear level, most people who are notable for preaching in any denomination hold clearly defined positions in the denomination that are better categorized in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (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:Film directors from Europe

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: no consensus to delete (I am speedily renaming it to Category:European film directors to match the format of Category:European people by occupation). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since when do we categorize by continent? A whole bunch of these "X by continent" by this user, so someone else feel free to nominate the rest. Nymf talk to me 07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do Turkish film directors, for example, go in the Europe or Asia categories? Or both? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
both - check other continental cats, this is almost always done this way. Turkey and a few others are oddballs, so they go in both. Again, the problem here is that the cats in question are only in the continental containers - the standard is you can have continental containers and a by-country list as well, making it easier On the user.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment countries can be divided by continent, to make organization easier, since there's over 100 countries in the world -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge back to the parent Category:Film directors by nationality. Unnecessary new layer which impedes navigation, as stated above. Neutralitytalk 04:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Obi WK. Grouping categories by continent is a convenient and culturally relevant way of helping navigati0n. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since by nationality and by country are two different things, isn't it possible that there can be a French director from Australia? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually more relevant would be a French director from Guadaloupe. He is clearly French, Guadaloupe is a department of France, but is he "from Europe"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think about cases like that. If you start to look for them, and they're all *over* the tree, you will go mad. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think subcategorising people by continent is particularly inconvenient, and it can help to clear up those massive 'X by nationality' categories. At least in the case of film, it's justified - there really are differences between 'European film', 'Asian film', 'African film' etc. Robofish (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (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:American pornographic actors

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:American pornographic film actors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:American pornographic film actors Nymf talk to me 07:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to parent. agree it's one from the department of redundancy department. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2013 (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:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack

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) 04:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being damaged by something is not normally considered to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This does not form part of a "Ships damaged by something" category tree. This could be has been listified. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for finding that CFD (in which I don't see much support for this category). The incidents category should really be just for articles that are about an incident (i.e. an event such as a fire), not for an article about any ship that had such an incident - most/all of the articles directly in the maritime incidents category are about an incident. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't - there is now List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2013 (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:Monasteries where Gautama Buddha stayed

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) 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This does not form part of a "places where someone stayed" category tree. For info: There is a list article. A related CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_28#Category:Places_that_Gautama_Buddha_visited. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What is the Category:Places where someone stayed category tree? This sounds like it should be in it, and I'd like to see any other discussions about this. I'd think non-defining at first glance but maybe there's some reason I'm missing, if there's a whole category tree for it ... --Lquilter (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that there isn't a Category:Places where someone stayed category tree for this category to fit under. DexDor (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whew. I thought maybe I was crazy. In that case ... --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not defining of these places. next up: Places where Buddha had lunch. Places where Jesus drank tea. And so on...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, facts of historical & tourist interest are not the same thing as "defining" facts. Places where Jesus may have been conceived. Places where Mohammed gazed pensively toward the west. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete analogue to Washington slept here sorts of cats; pick your prophet, what he/she did/thought/achieved and you get a new cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the Buddha was certainly a very notable figure, but I suspect there will be a problem of verifying this. Ulimately, this suffers from the same problem as a performance by perfoemer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of thing might work for a list but it does not work for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (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:Villages in Norfolk connected with houses of historical interest

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, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This makes a mess of the category structure. There is not a wider "Places connected with buildings of historical interest" category tree. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2013 (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/2013_May_21&oldid=1140228842"