Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31

Category:Leap years

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 WP:CFD 2017 February 6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) In which calendar? (Proleptic) Julian, (Proleptic) Gregorian. (2) Not a useful categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (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.

Shooting in FooCountry

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 option B, Category:Shooting sports in Argentina etc. Cerebellum (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
OPTION A: (singular) "Category:Shooting sport"
66 more "Shooting in FooCountry" categories
or OPTION B: (plural) "Category:Shooting sports"
66 more "Shooting in FooCountry" categories
Nominator's rationale: The phrase "Shooting in FooCountry" is ambiguous, because it can reasonably be read to include
Shooting sport and the containing Category:Shooting sports by country (parent Category:Shooting sports
).
I can see arguments in favour of both the singular and the plural forms, so I have listed the both as options. So far, I have no preference between them; both resolve the ambiguity, so either is fine by me.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors below make a good case for preferring the plural form (Option B), and I am persuaded by it. I still support either option, but now prefer "B". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: all categories tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 31 December 2016 (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:Corporate finance

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 Category:Corporate finance and governance as a pointless layer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the target consists only of two subcategories, so there is one redundant category layer. In addition the nominated category and the target category have the same JEL tag on the category page. (A reverse merge is also possible.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.The Category:Corporate finance and governance should go and the Category:Corporate finance and Category:Corporate governance should stay.Category:Corporate finance and governance does not serve any purpose. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, that's what I meant with a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (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:Order of the Colonial Empire

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 CFD 2017 February 6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NONDEFINING
)
The Order of the Colonial Empire was an award for residents of Portugal's colonial empire. The three articles we have listed are Mozambique Company (which makes sense although it's already well categorized), George V, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I haven't found a source that says why two British royals received the award but neither is defined by Portugal's colonies. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Portugal. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients should be expanded. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As the President and Prime Minister of Portugal,
WP:DEFINING differently. (We agree on expanding Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients though; I added both articles you mentioned.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the order is not defining for the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi

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) feminist 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEFINING
)
When foreign heads of state visited Iran, they would receive
here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Iran. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (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 zombie comedy films

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With so few entries in both cats, sub-categorization seems needless. 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2016 (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:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece

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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of a series created by
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bad joke gone badly wrong - the "redlinked" is a clue that this category was never supposed to actually exist and was simply a way of trying to "out-EEng" EEng. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now I'm a punchline. EEng 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A horse gets pulled up to arb. Everyone says "why the long face?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic! EEng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, crazy that a legitimate CfD entry somehow slipped into this chat page. --2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –
    Oculi (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, I think Idiosyncratic Wikipedians is a truly useful category. EEng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculously long title and obviously made as a joke. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 31 December 2016 (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:Women scientists by century

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. Bduke (Discussion) 06:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hierarchy was 'Women scientists by period' > Women scientists by century, Ancient women scientists, Medieval scientists. (1) While a century can be conceived as a subunit of a longer period, it is also a period in it's own right so it is a redundant level. (2) There are only going to be about 8 subcats in the Period (Ancient, Medieval, 15th, 16th, etc.) so it is unnecessary and cumbersome to create the "by century" sub category. (3) An individual may conceive of the centuries to be subunits in their own mental hierarchy but that does not mean the wiki categories need to mirror that instead of being pragmatic JBVaughan (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (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/2016_December_31&oldid=1127484655"