Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12

Category:Snowtown murders

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. MER-C 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 article, Snowtown murders. Tim! (talk) 20:33, 12 January 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:DC Extended Universe 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: delete. MER-C 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another actor-by-universe category. Others have been removed, created by the same user. ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 18:43, 12 January 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:People with eidetic memory

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. MER-C 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Our own article on Eidetic memory says it does not exist, so tagging people as "people with eidetic memory" is a little crazy. I saw this when a terrorist Abubakar Shekau was categorized as one. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As being defining (the claim that they have one), as backed up by the main article. Most of the articles in the category that I checked mention this in the lead of said article (IE this person is primarily known for having a eidetic memory, or their powers to recall things from memory). If there are articles in the category that you don't think belong there, they need pruning out. Abubakar Shekau is a classic case of someone adding a category that's not supported in the article text. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining and apparently not true. Despite, the claim that it's defining, I'm sure that it's not how ANYONE defines Leonhard Euler, Ferdinand Marcos, Sukarno, Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, John von Neumann, among others, eminent scientists and politicians by this claim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List of people claimed to possess an eidetic memory is sufficient to cover this topic, and does a better job contextualizing the controversial nature of the concept of eidetic memory. Ibadibam (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Controversial subject, questionable historicity, and categories typically do not include sources on who is to be included. Lists are more appropriate here. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article says none of the claims are proven scientifically. If kept, rename to match the list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Everyone already pointed the reasons but it is quite a biased category.
    talk) 16:30, 19 January 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:Mayors of Wildwood, New Jersey

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 and recategorize by article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Only has two entries. Also merge the entries to Mayors of places in New Jersey. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 12 January 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:Carthusian literature

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. MER-C 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of
WP:C1
, an empty category.
Wikipedia doesn't have even a single article about
WP:SMALLCAT. (No objection to recreating later if we can get up to around 5 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: Notified Quinto Simmaco as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Catholicism. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this category as part of an ongoing project to categorise writings originating from within a monastic milieu. Each order can have radically different approaches to mysticism, devotions, canon law, and general practise. Thus, each of these categories was to have a category-specific parent article (i.e., in this case, "Carthusian literature") connected to a larger parent article, "Monastic literature", with the sections therein linked to those category-specific parent articles.
Unfortunately, life got in the way, as it often does, and the project was left unfinished. I was forced to take an extended wiki-break, and my activity on Wikipedia was almost nil. Hence the relatively empty category. Honestly, I'm ambivalent as to whether the category is deleted... However, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to fill in the category (in relatively short order); there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia concerning literary works by Carthusians, both specifically relating internally to the order, and otherwise. Though admittedly, there are considerably less articles than, say, for the Franciscan article. But doing this would render the reason for deletion moot, obviously. For that matter, it wouldn't be difficult to complete the project, without any possibility of WP:SYNTH; there are a wealth of reliable sources discussing this subject.
I was honestly surprised, when searching for works by authors within specific orders, that there were no such categories. Or parent article discussing the literary activity within these orders, given their rather prolific literary activity and traditions. In my opinion, it's something that could radically ease navigation. Though I suppose this is one of those topic areas that is something of a niche interest, and doesn't necessarily attract a great deal of traffic.
You're free to delete the category, if that's the consensus, of course. And as you say, it can indeed be re-created later. I guess my comment, aside from explaining why it was created is to pose the question: wouldn't it simply be easier to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinto Simmaco (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 January 2016
I actually did make a good faith effort to populate the category here but there are no articles currently on Wikipedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I do agree that the literary output of monks and nuns is an encyclopedic matter of historical interest, subcategories by monastic order seem rather trivial. The order does not define the nature of the work. Unlikely to be well-populated either way. Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The only reference to the Carthusians in the article is that a member of the order made a translation. The article is already in monastic literature, so that I do not think any wider upmerging is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 17 January 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:Philias

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. MER-C 11:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a category for topics whose name (or one of several names) contains "philia". That's not how we normally categorize wp articles. DexDor (talk) 05:07, 12 January 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:American animation with black protagonist

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. It sounds like some differently named single category might be acceptable to users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammatically incorrect. No opinion on
whether this category should exist. If kept, it should at least be renamed to American animation with a black protagonist or something like that (but that still seems badly worded). Also no opinion on whether such a category, if it exists, should allow for the use of multiple protagonists over the duration of one cartoon. Hypothetically. ―cobaltcigs 01:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Update: tagged other related categories, listed entire tree above. ―cobaltcigs 08:58, 12 January 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:New Orleans Jazz

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. I've made it into a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Dixieland, which is already covered by Category:Dixieland. Ibadibam (talk) 00:00, 12 January 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_January_12&oldid=1138409777"