Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:Wikipedians with a category on their user page which they are the only member of

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: Speedy delete per
deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_23#Category:Wikipedians_with_more_than_one_category_on_their_user_page_which_they_are_the_only_member_of ~ Rob13Talk 19:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 26 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:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata

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 both. The defenders of these categories have not demonstrated how these two categories are useful. A persuasive point made (near the end) is that if they could become useful for a future migration task, they could easily be temporarily recreated. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why do we have a maintenance category for things that don't need maintenance? More than 100,000 pages and 1000 categories have this utterly useless hidden cat. We won't make Wikipedia faster or cheaper to maintain by adding all kinds of tracking cats with no use at all. There probably are a lot of other similar cats, knowing the Wikidata-invasiveness, this one just caught my eye.
Fram (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Also nominated for deletion:
Fram (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia Wikidata. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Administrative categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages." Categories used as decoration or to show theoretical moral support for Wikidata aren't an administrative category. (We probably just disagree here though; thanks for your thoughts.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supercategory identifies data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata in the general case, so without verification, it would seem to me to be the case that this category tracks such for Commons categories. Keep. Unless someone can suggest otherwise, and that this category is literally tracking pagenames rather than data on the pageneral in the commons category template...? --Izno (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, a) performance concerns get a flat WP:Don't worry about performance response, and b) "it's annoying" is not a valid deletion criterion. --Izno (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re Izno: I understand data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata to mean: pages in this category are candidates to have local Commons category name input be removed. (local input would be parameter |1= in the populating templates {{Commons category}} and {{Commons category-inline}}). However, pages with such |1= local input are listed in sister cat Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0), as the templates' code says. The maintenance task you mention (remove the local input) should be from this sister category (a category probably meant to be emptied!).
Per templates' code, this category has pages with |1=<novalue>, for example London Buses route 1. In those, there is no maintenance job to be done. Even worse, this category cannot be made empty. It only says: "en:Pages where d:P373 is OK for its d:QID". -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What maintenance needs doing on the articles in these categories? None. All it says is that maintenance is not needed. The categories counts the number of such articles, but that can be done in other ways, without adding pointless categories to hundreds of thousands of articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: "There are certainly maintenance categories that are completely unnecessary, this is not one of them" because we need editors to go through the contents and change XYZ and, once that is done, remove them from this category. If there is a real end to that sentence, I'll gladly change my vote! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Others share your opinion, above, so I don't mean that question just to you. Thank you for participating in CFD.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re Rich Farmbrough -- since you admit it has no function at all, why not delete (and reinstall when such a need is expressed)? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. And your plan would involve some 200,000 pointless edits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, it involves only removing the code that generates the categories from the template or templates; the categories will be removed automatically and silently, i.e. without appearing in watchlists.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misunderstanding of the word "maintenance" I think. Maintenance categories are useful to the maintenance function, they do not necessarily contain articles requiring maintenance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
On Wikipedia maintenance is concerned with doing "maintenance tasks". So what tasks need doing to the articles in these categories?.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. Can someone, only just one person, express what "maintenance job" (taken broadly) this category does? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As described here in reply to Izno, this category has no maintenance function. It only says: 'Pages where d:QID has eponymous d:P373 value'. This category can not help finding wrongly-named commons categories (listing pages 'eponymous commonscat name is incorrect'). (Do not confuse with Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0): delete local input value?). -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just notified Template talk:Commons category. I find it somewhat perplexing that no-one thought to do so prior to this time, since that template generates this category. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno Interesting. But why not reply to my recent argument, #here? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually associate that page with technical template issues but I, of course, welcome additional feedback. Usually maintenance categories are non-controversial at CFD: either we hear that "oh, we don't need that anymore" and it gets deleted or "we use that maintenance category to do X" so it stays.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 19:41, 25 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:People from Gibraltar

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. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: the categorisation system for people by nationality does not support a distinction between "Fooian people" and "people from Foo". The two constructions are used interchangeably, with a preference for "Fooian people" unless it causes ambiguity (as with Georgia (country) or other problems such as non-neutrality (e.g. Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you intend "Gibraltarian people"?Rathfelder (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love it! Wholeheartedly approve Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Striking my previous vote. The revised one isn't nearly as amusing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a case of
    WP:AINT, since we already have exceptions on "Fooian people" anyway we might also keep this one as is. People from Gibraltar sounds much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Admin comment: As this discussion looks rather confusing, I am minded to close this discussion as "no consensus" and recommend a fresh nomination.
Other comments: Category:People from Gibraltar was merged to Category:Gibraltarian people per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_7#Category:Gibraltarian_people. There was formerly also "People associated with Gibraltar" but this was also merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_24#Category:People_associated_with_Gibraltar. Category:People from Gibraltar was later re-opened in 2013 without discussion by user:Gibmetal77 stating "Gibraltarian" has a legal definition and can't be used to describe all people from Gibraltar. If that refers to the ethnic group Gibraltarians, then the point at issue is whether there should be a category to distinguish that ethnicity from geographical origin.
Apart from that, this discussion is similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_23#Category:People_from_Singapore which is about a distinction between nationality and geographic origin. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also about a slavish adherence to demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK so here's my two pennies worth... You cannot refer to someone as 'Gibraltarian' if they do not have Gibraltarian Status. It is not just a demonym but a legal status (not a nationality by the way). The term can also only be used for the period following the Capture of Gibraltar so it would also be wrong to have people who were born in Gibraltar during its Castilian history (or even earlier) listed as a Gibraltarian. It just would not be factual. I understand the rationale for consistency but we also have to be flexible when there is a need for it. We could do the opposite and merge Category:Gibraltarian people into Category:People from Gibraltar, but although I've not been active for a while, I have always found it extremely useful to be able to separate these groups of people with the two separate categories. I hope this helps to clarify. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be a newbie, but you've hit the nail on the head. The only reason that this is even an issue is because of a slavish adherence to the use of demonyms which should be selectively abandoned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge a defining connection with the place is much easier to demonstrate that some holding of some nationality like connection with this particular place. Nothing is gained from the splitting of the people connected with the place in the way the structure currently does. Due to the nature of the people living there are the size of the entity as well as its status as a dependency of the UK Gibraltar has a very high rate of people living there who are not "nationals" of the place as opposed to other places, and a fairly low rate of people whose residency there is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 20 March 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:Bengali lyricists

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Bengali is a language as well as ethnicity, the lyricists need to be categorized only as per the language they wrote in, irrespective of their ethnicity. Similar for other language/ethnicity too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 25 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:Zoë Records

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) 22:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

Parent article Zoë Records deleted and, despite category tree, label does not seem to be notable enough to warrant an article. No reason to categorize by what does not exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The label does exist. Believe it or not, many things exist in the real world without having an article on en.Wikipedia. <grin>
    These albums are still defined by the label, regardless of the existence of an article on that label, so the deletion rationale is misplaced.
    Oh ...
    WP:A7, and that looks to me like a very poor fit for A7, so I have undeleted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_25&oldid=1151015291"